put, we believe requiring more attorney involvement in cases such as this would belie the Court’s oft-stated assertion that UPL rules exist to protect the public, not lawyers. See, e.g., Crawford, 404 S.C. at 45, 744 S.E.2d at 541 (“The unauthorized practice of law jurisprudence in South Carolina is driven by the public policy of protecting consumers.”). In this context, where there is already “a robust regulatory regime[ ] and competent non-attorney professionals,” id. at 47, 744 S.E.2d at 542, we do not believe requiring more attorney involvement would appreciably benefit the public or justify the concomitant increase in costs and reduction in consumer choice or access to affordable legal services. Cf. In re Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules, 309 S.C. at 306, 422 S.E.2d at 124-25 (<HOLDING>). DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ISSUED. BEATTY, C.J.,
recognizing the public interest exception recognizing the strict licensing requirements for becoming a certified public accountant cpa and holding that allowing cpas to practice in their areas of expertise subject to their own professional regulation will best serve to both protect and promote the public interest recognizing distinctions between public and private areas recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public recognizing that sale of insurance affects the public interest and is subject to state regulation