Is a law whose application is triggered by communicating about a particular topic nonetheless content-neutral so long as the law can be described as aimed at the 'purpose, focus, and circumstance' of the speech rather than at its content?

Petitioners, a nonprofit corporation and one of its volunteers, wanted to train nonlawyers to offer narrow, specific advice to poor people facing specific legal problems —a program that turned out to be prohibited by New York’s prohibition on the “unauthorized practice of law,” which reaches even unpaid spoken advice about the law . In the case below, the Second Circuit held that this restriction on Petitioners’ speech is content -neutral because it is not aimed at the content of their speech (which is communicating legal advice and opinions to particu lar clients ) but is instead aimed at the “purpose, focus , and circumstance” of their speech, which is “the rendering of legal advice and opinions to particular clients.” The question presented is: Is a law whose application is triggered by communicating a bout a particular topic nonetheless content-neutral so long as the law can be described as aimed at the “purpose, focus, and circumstance” of the speech rather than at its content?