Jay-
Thanks for that good bit of information- I don't see how Johnson Co can exclude unlicensed abstractors or any of the general public from access to the land records- but I would more likely understand a note about searches completed by unlicensed abstractors are not valid  for legal conveyances or liens- in a previous post Robert and I mentioned something about the title insurance companies being the ones that might have a direct interest in being sure the examinations were performed by licensed abstractors just for the liability aspects that using bogus abstractors would not constitute a valid search. The $25 fine does not address the liability of the search in any way- that is just another way to get lunch money for the clerk's office!!!
Have you found that you now have an increased business base since the number of licensed abstractors has been reduced just because the testing is done at such extreme dates? Also, don't you now feel that since you and your licensed abstractors can command a higher price for your expertise?
This is just like it costs more for a licensed electrician  to wire up your new addition you added to your house rather than your best friends buddy that does that kind of work on the side!!!
I do think that licensing can be one of the best ways we can ask for and get the higher fees that our service provides-more along the lines of a percentage of the settlement rather than the non-inflation fighting set fees-  you don't hear the realtors, title insurance agents, or mortgage brokers complaining about not getting a raise lately do you?- That's because they get a raise every time something sells for a dollar more- we should work for and get the same type of arrangement. Maybe this is something that NALTEA can get into and have some more true value to it's members and as such more members.( of which I am not)
Thank you Jay for your input, and to Robert for his previous post also-
all have some good information.
Steve Meinecke