Well, there's this also:

Rule 102. Title Opinions or Abstracts and Giving Legal Advice:

(A) A non-lawyer shall not undertake with or without compensation, direct or indirect, to advise another in any matter involving the application of legal principles to the ownership, use, disposition or encumbrance of real estate, except that, incident to his investigation of factual matters, he may give advice to his regular employer, other than in aid of his employer’s unauthorized practice of law, or to a licensed lawyer upon request of the lawyer, who assumes full responsibility for that advise.

(B) The giving of a written or oral report that contains a statement as to the legal status of title, or the legal effects of matters found of record, or the use of such report in a manner in which an opinion as to the status of title could reasonably be inferred is tantamount to giving legal advice as to the ownership, use, disposition or encumbrance of real estate.

(C) A disclaimer or other statement, which purports to indicate that the “report” or “Information” is not giving legal advice or not a “legal opinion”, does not excuse the non-lawyer from violating this rule. The anticipated use and expectation of the recipient of the information therefore is controlling. Similarly, a disclaimer or statement indicating that the recipient should have the statement reviewed by his own lawyer does not excuse the non-lawyer from such unauthorized practice.

To my reading, this cuts India (and West Virginia non-lawyer independent  title abstractors) out of the picture. 

The full proposed law is found online here.