provided by non-lawyer agents in criminal magistrate’s court as compared to the activities already permitted by this Court in its case law, possibly because there is no practical or meaningful difference between the representation of a corporation in civil versus criminal magistrate’s courts, insofar as whether the conduct by non-lawyers should be authorized or not. I believe the majority’s strong emphasis on the criminal nature of the proceedings involved misses the mark. According to our Constitution, the Attorney General serves as the State’s chief prosecuting officer, with the authority to supervise the prosecution of all criminal cases in courts of record. S.C. Const. art. V, § 24 (emphasis added); cf. State ex rel. McLeod v. Snipes, 266 S.C. 415, 420, 223 S.E.2d 853, 855 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Magistrate’s court is summary in nature and
recognizing that the duty to actually prosecute criminal cases is performed primarily and almost exclusively by the solicitors except in those situations when a solicitor calls upon the attorney general for assistance holding that it would be improper for a united states district attorney to prosecute a defendant using information the prosecutor had obtained while acting as the accuseds private attorney recognizing that a reading of the oregon criminal statute indicates that the acts prohibited are those which are performed upon the mother rather than any action taken by her recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel recognizing that a california criminal defendant may move to have his courtappointed attorney substituted for different counsel if the appointed attorney is rendering inadequate assistance