On the constitutionality of regulation of the "practice of law" in the United States

A lot of things depend in the United States on the legitimacy of regulation of the "practice of law".

1. only licensed attorneys are allowed to give legal advice, represent people in court, draw up title documents and contracts, and thus through regulation of the practice of law, people's access to court is controlled: you do not have money for an attorney, and you cannot skillfully represent yourself in court - your rights are lost forever;

2. only licensed attorneys are allowed to be prosecutors, interact with grand juries, and to be judges and finally resolve people's disputes, including life and death, the death penalties case.

As an expert in both criminal and constitutional law, I looked at the regulation of the practice of law by applying the current laws, and constitutional precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of clarity of the law - in general, and in criminal cases, since regulation of the "practice of law" is regulated through criminal prosecutions of "unauthorized practice of law" (UPL), where the "practice of law" is the main element.

I posted my very short article on the subject, 3.5 pages, as an independent researcher, into Academia.edu - and as a result, I was propelled to the top 5% of researchers, out of millions of researchers there, and this particular article - into top 4%, by the traffic to that article, traffic by law students and law professors from around the world.

I have had law professors from

• Vietnam,
• Tanzania
• The Phillippines
• Papua and New Guinea
• the U.K.
• France,
• Azerbaijan
• Russia
• the United States - many
• India
• Bangladesh
• Ireland

etc. visit the page and read or download the article.

Here it is.

As you see, the reasoning is based exclusively on mandatory and binding decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, why are we still regulating the practice of law if such regulation, according to our own laws, is screamingly unconstitutional?