IS A COURT RULE DEFINING AND PROHIBITING THE
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW ("UPL") AN UNCONSTITU
TIONAL ABRIDGMENT OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH WHEN a) IT IS
VAGUE AND OVERBROAD AND b) IT FOSTERS NO "SUBSTANTIAL
STATE INTEREST " fBates v. State Bar of Arizona . 433 U.S. 350 (1977)]
WHEN THE CHARGING OF A FEE IS BY THE RULE THE SOLE
DETERMINANT IN FINDING UPL EXTANT IF THE FEE IS PAID TO A
NONLAWYER AND NOT A LAWYER?A)

B) WHILE A STATE MAY LEGISLATIVELY MONOPOLIZE A
MARKET FOR A SERVICE (HERE, LIMITING RENDITION OF LEGAL
SERVICES TO MEMBERS OF A BAR), MAY THE BAR POLICE UPL
WHERE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE GOVERNING AGENCY ARE
PRACTICING LAWYERS IN COMPETITION WITH THE NONLAWYERS
TO BE REGULATED rNorth Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v.
FTC . 574 U.S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015)]?

Is a court rule defining and prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law an unconstitutional abridgment of commercial speech?