Unauthorized Practice of Law Memorandum of law Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality. Pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. Jenkins v. McKeithern 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969), Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 151 F.2d 240, and Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 747 (1969). Members of groups who are competent non-lawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with “unauthorized practice of law.” N.A.A.C.P.v Burton, 371 U.S. 415, United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969). Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings. Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1. Where proceeding is administrative in nature, non-lawyers are authorized to provide representation. Sperry v. State of Florida ex re. The Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379, 83 S. Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed. 2d 428 (1963). The vast majority of “unauthorized practice of law” cases are brought by bar organizations, not injured consumers. Of all “unauthorized practice of law” inquiries, investigations, and complaints in 1979, only 2 percent arose from consumer complaints. Stanford Law Review. “Legal advice” cannot be defined due to the ever changing needs of society and the business world. The Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh. An allegation that a layperson committed the “unauthorized practice of law” should be evaluated by (1) Protection of the Public, and on the other hand, (2) promoting convenience and low cost. Perkins vs. CTX Mortgage, Washington Supreme Court No. 64581-1, 1/7/99. Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for next friend assistance to an incompetent person. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 17(c). “I feel as though the lawyers of this country are like passengers on the Titanic . . . the music is playing and the champagne glasses are tinkling, yet . . . practitioners in their momentary bliss are oblivious to the [icebergs] ahead.” – Altman and Weil, national law firm consultants. “Our profession faces quantum change. I believe lawyers are like the great buffalo herds of the 1800’s, locked in stampedes for extinction. Is the cliff two years away or five? . . . I believe at least six out of 10 American lawyers will go over the cliff.” – Charlie Robinson, futurist and attorney. The Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. Warnock v. Pecos County, 88 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 07/08/1996), Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct. 441 (1908); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 664, 39 L. Ed. 2d 662, 94 S. Ct. 1347 (1974); Brennan v. Stewart, 834 F.2d 1248, 1252 (5th Cir. 1988). No Kansas Statute was found extant wherein the Kansas Legislature has either (1) defined what constitutes practicing law or (2) establishes a licensing board for the express purpose of licensing persons to practice law.