With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as a lawyer and (3) without holding a current license to practice law in Texas (or in another state or foreign country) and being in good standing. Appellant has failed to show how the statute touches on the speech of non-lawyer professionals because the statute is focused narrowly on those individuals who meet the elements of the statute. “The statute [38.122] affects only commercial speech in the context of employment as a lawyer,” and it is not facially overbroad. Manrique, 40 S.W.3d at 554 (concluding holding oneself out as a lawyer by providing legal advice was commercial speech and did not render the statute invalid). Further, that the statute has no definition of the term and phrase about which appellant complains does not render it over- broad. See Manrique, 40 S.W.3d at 555 (<HOLDING>). Here, the statute seeks to regulate the

A: holding in the context of a vagueness challenge it is simple to conclude how a person holds himself out as a member of the legal profession
B: holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person
C: holding after bairesreyes was decided that  16b is void for vagueness in the context of the ina
D: holding that a person who cut and removed timber pursuant to the direction of the person in possession of the property but without the written consent of the company holding legal title to the land could be held liable under the gtccs
A.