The Supreme Court sets the rules about who can practice law and how they can practice it. One longstanding rule is that lawyers cannot split fees with non lawyers. The purpose of this rule is so that the attorney puts the interest of his client first and not that of his referral source. The attorney in this matter had no client contact and was effectively representing American Family but drafting documents for another party. That is effecively a conflict of interest."You have to be a Licensed attorney to Practice law" is correct and NO ONE IS CHALLENGING THAT. As I understand the case, American Family used a LICENSED ATTORNEY who agreed to handle all the matters requiring an attorney,such as the preparaton of trust,etc,so there is not a violation there.
Again, the Supreme Court decides who, how and where law will be practiced, just as the liquor department decides who, how and where liquor will be sold, and just as the Dentistry Board decides who, how and where law will practice Dentistry. The Court saw what was going on here and put a stop to it. It saw a company trying to create a loophole for itself, profiting unfairly selling a product they a) weren't qualified to discuss; b) using scare tactics about probate court to scare people; c) convincing people who didn't need such legal work that they did and d) for zero savings over a real attorney.
Most of the people who were ripped off could have avoided probate by titling things appropriately (joint/survivorship, TOD, POD). They didn't need a huckster selling them a trust they didn't need.
And the final thing they didn't tell them ....... it often costs just as much to handle things in a non-probate estate as it does when an estate goes through probate court.
If you want to prepare trusts so bad, then go to law school.