I concur in the judgment that petitioner be reinstated as a member of the bar of this state, but I cannot refrain from pointing out that the decision of the majority here is definitely out of line with recent decisions of this court in Feinstein v. State Bar (September 16, 1952), 39 Cal.2d 541 [248 P.2d 3] and Roth v. State Bar (February 25, 1953), 40 Cal.2d 307 [253 P.2d 969], in both of which cases I dissented. In fact, the showing in both the Feinstein and Roth cases in favor of rehabilitation was much stronger than the showing made by the petitioner here and there was no showing whatsoever in either of those cases against rehabilitation. In the Feinstein ease the petitioner had been disbarred for over ten years and in the Roth case for over eight years, while in the case at bar only seven years had elapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement. Neither the Feinstein nor Roth case is cited in the majority opinion and the rule announced in those cases with respect to the showing required in support of a petition for reinstatement is not even mentioned.
I take the same position here that I took in the Feinstein and Roth cases that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that petitioner has, since his disbarment, lived a useful and honorable life, kept gainfully employed and has gained, and held, the respect and confidence of the people with whom he has associated and dealt for many years, he has met the burden cast upon him to establish his rehabilitation. I believe such *198a showing was made in this ease as well as in the Feinstein and Roth cases.
The standard of moral character required of those who are permitted to practice law in this state should be the highest possible. A license to practice law places the holder in a position where he may impose upon the ignorance or credulity of his clients to their detriment if he is so minded, and it is the responsibility of the State Bar and of this court to protect the interests of the public by eliminating, from the profession, those who have shown by their conduct that they are lacking in the moral character requirement. The problem of reinstatement of . a disbarred lawyer is always a difficult one. It has been correctly stated that the principal issue is rehabilitation (see In re Andreani, 14 Cal.2d 736 [97 P.2d 456]). This issue is one of fact and must be established by evidence. Where the evidence is uncontradicted, as it was in the Feinstein and Roth eases, and shows exemplary conduct extending over a period of from eight to ten years without even a suggestion of wrongdoing, it would seem that rehabilitation had been established. If it was not established in those cases, it certainly was not established here. There should be some measure of uniformity in cases such as these if the precept of “Equal justice under law” is to have any vitality whatsoever. The concept of rehabilitation is now so firmly embedded in our law that none but the sternest martinet would refuse to apply it in cases where it has been established by the uncontradicted evidence.
The members of this court are not psychiatrists nor are they clairvoyant. Unless our decisions are based on evidence and rules of law uniformly applied, they are nothing more t.hg.n arbitrary determinations which change from time to time according to the whim or caprice of the individual members of the court and we thus have a government of men and not of law.
While as heretofore stated, the showing made by petitioner in favor of his rehabilitation is not as strong as that made in either the Feinstein or Roth cases, I believe it is sufficient to warrant his reinstatement, and I therefore concur in the conclusion reached by the majority.
EDMONDS, J.It long has been the rule in this state that “the burden of proof is upon the one who seeks . . . restoration to the ranks of the legal profession, and before the court may grant the petition for reinstatement it must be satisfied *199and fully convinced by positive evidence that the effort he has made toward rehabilitation of his character has been successful. (Citations.) It is only reasonable that the person seeking reinstatement, after disbarment, should be required to present stronger proof of his present honesty and integrity than one seeking admission for the first time whose character has never been in question. In other words, in an application for reinstatement, although treated by the court as a proceeding for admission, the proof presented must be sufficient to overcome the court’s former adverse judgment of applicant’s character.” (Kepler v. State Bar, 216 Cal. 52, 55 [13 P.2d 509].) This established principle has been consistently followed (Wettlin v. State Bar, 24 Cal.2d 862, 868-869 [151 P.2d 255] ; McArthur v. State Bar, 28 Cal.2d 779, 788 [172 P.2d 55]; Maggart v. State Bar, 29 Cal.2d 439, 444 [175 P.2d 505] ; Beeks v. State Bar, 35 Cal.2d 268, 275-276 [217 P.2d 409]), and was reaffirmed by recent decisions. (Feinstein v. State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 541, 546 [248 P.2d 3]; Roth v. State Bar, 40 Cal.2d 307, 313 [253 P.2d 969].)
The controlling criterion is whether the petitioner has produced convincing evidence of his rehabilitation, and to determine that question this court must weigh and evaluate the evidence. Essentially the determination is to be made by the application of a few general principles to the particular facts of the ease.
In my opinion, the evidence presented by Werner does not meet the burden of proof required of him. The Board of Governors followed the recommendation of the Special Administrative Committee. That committee heard the witnesses and the petitioner; this court must depend upon the printed record. The determinations of the Board of Governors and its administrative committee should be accorded the greatest deference (Roth v. State Bar, supra, p. 315; In re Lacey, 11 Cal.2d 699, 701 [81 P.2d 935]; Beeks v. State Bar, supra, p. 277), and I do not find in the record such convincing evidence of rehabilitation as to justify a conclusion different from the recommendation made to this court.
For these reasons, I would deny the application.
Spence, J., concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied February 24, 1954. Edmonds, J., and Spence, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.