Patricia,

Do you have any further information as to how the lawyers are trying to accomplish this - through a lawsuit to enforce current law, or lobbying for new legislation to expand the reach of the UPL definition?

It seems to me this is a way for the attorneys to protect a 'good ol' boys' network that exists in several states.  For instance, some states require an abstractor to own a title plant in each county he or she provides service - or to be employed by a company that does.  In other states, the lawyers covet the business and find UPL to be a convenient means of driving our the  competition.

If the course of action in West Virginia is to effect new legislation, I think the abstractors may have a chance to successfully oppose the effort.  Here are some questions I would ask any politician considering the attorneys' position:

• Have there been recent quality issues, or obvious overstepping of boundaries significant enough to warrant a turnover of the occupation to attorneys only?
• Would the decrease in supply of service providers raise the cost of services to the consumer?
• Would the absence of competition result in slower delivery of the search product, with the unintended effect of delaying closings (and perhaps causing loss of rate locks)?

You may have some allies in your opposition to turning your jobs over to the lawyers.  RESPRO.ORG seems to advocate for the ability of title companies to offer services in any state.  You might want to take a look at their website and learn more about them. 

NALTEA might also be interested in assisting in some way.