So far, I have found the following:
- whether knowing English or not,
- whether literate or not,
- whether having any level of education or not,
- whether trained in the law or not,
- whether licensed attorneys or not,
4) In all states in the U.S. criminal law is codified - in other words, nothing is a crime unless committed into a statute.
5) In all states of the U.S. decisions of what constitute crimes are legislative decisions given only to elected public representatives, in the Legislatures;
6) The "practice of law" is an element in all criminal statutes regarding unauthorized practice of law - which is a misdemeanor (up to 1 year in jail + fines and surcharges in some states, and a felony, with the resulting loss of civil rights including the right to vote, in other states, with over 1 year incarceration in prison and over $1,000 in fines).
With that said, I found that what constitutes the practice of law, which is the direct subject of licensing, and an element of the crime of unauthorized practice of law, is not clearly defined by statute in any of the U.S. jurisdictions.
Here is how the practice of law is defined in different states:
As an example of a vague definition of the practice of law here is the statute from the State of Alabama (there are same and/oro similar problems with vagueness, overbreadth and reaching constitutionally protected conduct in all statutes listed above):
In plain English, this section says:
an individual or a business, including a corporation, MAY draft documents for itself, if:
they have a proprietary interest in the property, and
if they do not record such document, but just keep it in their files -
which makes no sense, because it is a prohibition, at least for individuals, for pro se representation and to secure their own rights - on their own.
It makes no sense that the government WILL accept a pro se pleading, but WILL NOT accept a pro se deed that somebody drafted giving his own property to somebody else.
Moreover, this section is in conflict with Section (2) that allows to do everything in a representative capacity on just one condition - do it for free, without charging money or "rewards" or "pecuniary benefits" for it.
So, the statute gives no real notice of what is allowed and what is prohibited, is a conceptual mess, prohibits a broad scope of lawful conduct, including constitutionally protected conduct, and, prohibits in one section what it allows in the other.
Statutes from other states are no better.
And, the judiciary of the State of Alabama that is regulating the practice of law in the State, is more concerned with infringement on their own power - right now it is supporting the Chief Judge of the State of Alabama suspended for defiance to a U.S. Supreme Court precedent - than to make any effort in changing the situation where access to court for all residents in the state of Alabama, guaranteed by the Petitions Clause of the 1st Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution all of the judges were sworn to uphold, that access to court is curbed and "regulated", as to who can help litigants and anybody having any problem with any state "body", based on non-existing definitions, messed up kind-of definitions that give no notice to any reasonable person whatsoever and are begging for arbitrary after-the-fact application - which is a definition of unconstitutional acts.
But, let's go further with how the practice of law is defined in other states.
That means that "notice" of prohibited conduct is given to the public:
- not through a statute - in violation of the "notice" requirement given in criminal law only through criminal statutes (see, for example, Judge Aaron Persky's case - who was absolved of any wrongdoing because, at the time of sentencing of Brock Turner, having sex with an unconscious woman was not considered a rape by statute in the State of California);
- and not in advance - but after the person did the act, and charged for doing something wrong, the government tells him that it was wrong and why it was - which is a direct violation of the due process "notice" requirement, as well as of the "ex post facto" and "bill of attainder" clauses off the U.S. Constitution.