dissenting.
I think I am no less jealous of the integrity, learning in the law, and the ethical standards which should obtain and be maintained by the individual members and by the bar as a whole than those who joined in the majority opinion in this proceeding.
I think also that I am as zealous as these in my desire to protect the profession and the public from admission of those who are not clothed with the high standards which have been traditional from the beginning in this jurisdiction, and my desire for the dismissal or discipline of any and all of those who have become violators of these standards and this tradition.
In arriving at a conclusion as to whether or not a member of the bar has acquitted himself in conformity generally with his duties and obligations or as applied to a situation such as the present inquiry whether or not he has transgressed and continues to transgress his professional obligations, I commit myself to the unalterable view that where there has been, as here, transgression and suspension with a declaration of the right to restoration in due time on conditions prescribed, with which conditions there has been a compliance by the party, restoration should be allowed in the absence of a showing of overt significance that there is or has been during the period of suspension demonstration that the *659right of the party to return to the practice of his profession should not be restored.
By a showing of overt significance I mean statements of fact evidentiary in and of themselves or statement of charges sustained by some character of evidence, as distinguished from mere generalizations, hearsay, and personal unsupported beliefs.
The record in the present proceeding discloses that the respondent in response to the requirements of the order of suspension made application for reinstatement supported by a showing that he was entitled thereto. It cannot be well said that on its face this showing was not in all respects sufficient.
After this showing was made protests were filed in resistance to his application. These protests were for the most part generalities, opinions based upon hearsay, even in large part without a disclosure of the source of the hearsay, and personal unsupported beliefs. This portion of the protests, in the terms I have used, was without any overt significance.
If this portion had been disregarded by this court it would be of no consequence here. The majority opinion however makes it clear that it had a substantial if not a major influence upon the decision which was rendered.
I assert that it was entitled to no consideration whatever. Its consideration was violative of one of the paramount and basic principles of American jurisprudence. That principle is that evidence such as this, if it may indeed be regarded as evidence, is not acceptable as proof of wrongdoing.
It is quite true that this action is sui generis and is neither civil nor criminal in a true sense, but in it the respondent is charged as a wrongdoer. I doubt if anyone to whom this is a matter of concern would contend for a moment that the respondent was not entitled to reinstatement without the charges made being sustained by evidence of probative value. See, State v. Fisher, 103 Neb. 736, 174 N. W. 320; State ex rel. Nebraska State *660Bar Assn. v. Price, 144 Neb. 542, 13 N. W. 2d 714; State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Assn. v. Gudmundsen, 145 Neb. 324, 16 N. W. 2d 474; State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Assn. v. Pinkett, 157 Neb. 509, 60 N. W. 2d 641; State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Assn. v. Richards, 165 Neb. 80, 84 N. W. 2d 136.
There are but four incidents or types of incident relative to practice of law during the period of suspension. Three of these will be discussed as one. In these are included the drafting of deeds, mortgages, releases of mortgages, drawing contracts, making out income tax returns, and drawing a power of attorney. There can be no doubt about his doing these things. Of course he did.
It does not follow however that when he did so he was engaged in the practice of law. While it is true that these things bear a close relationship to the practice of law, each and all of them may be done without engagement in the practice of law, even though done by one learned in the profession. The only evidence in this record in these areas is that he did these things but there is nothing to contradict his evidence that in doing so he did not engage in the practice of law, except a suspicion that he was not telling the truth.
As to the matter of the will the evidentiary situation is the same as it is with the incidents involved in the other areas including the declaration by the respondent that he did not under the circumstances engage in the practice of law. Without going into detail, the effect of the evidence of the respondent is that he prepared the will under the direction of the maker. There is no denial of this. The majority opinion points out that the drafting and supervision of a will constitutes the practice of law. The evidence does show making but not supervision. The evidence indicates that the supervision was that of the maker pursuant to the provisions of another will which had been drafted and supervised, it is true, by the respondent but while he was in good *661standing as a member of the bar. By the measure declared in the majority opinion this was not practicing law and the charge, like the others mentioned, is supported only by suspicion.
There is no clear line as to what may and what may not be declared the practice of law in the making of wills. This being true it ought not to be said on this record that what he did was practicing law and on that account he had forfeited his right to a restoration of his license to practice law.
In the record is evidence of incidents of display of temperament, anger, disappointment, and resentment, which represented in some measure a contemptuous attitude on the part of respondent, but I am constrained to conclude that this was not sufficient upon which to base a refusal of this court to restore his license to practice law.