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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A) IS ACOURT RULE DEFINING AND PROHIBITING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW (“UPL”) AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABRIDGMENT OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH WHEN a) IT IS VAGUE AND OVERBROAD AND b) IT FOSTERS NO “SUBSTANTIAL STATE INTEREST” [Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977)] WHEN THE CHARGING OF AFEE IS BY THE RULE THE SOLE DETERMINANT IN FINDING UPL EXTANT IF THE FEE IS PAID TOA NONLAWYER AND NOT A LAWYER? 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 [North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FIC, 574U.S.___, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015)]? 1