Observers are skeptical about entrenched lawyers' motives because “[b] ar leaders are occasionally caught discussing the admission and marketing restrictions more or less Conduct Related to Admission to Bar, 107 ALR 5th 167, § 3 (2003

—case it seems clear that a motion to recall a remittitur in a District Court of Appeal is a cause within the purview of the above cited constitutional provision, and, therefore, when the District Court of Appeal rendered its decision on July 11, 1956, in which it "ordered that appellant's motion to recall the remittitur as to Count II is granted and it is ordered that the judgment …

Prior to the adoption of this amendment to section 5 of article VI of the Constitution the word "cause" as used in the Constitution of this state had acquired the definite meaning of including every matter that could come before the court for decision

It is true that the inquiry as to the moral character of an attorney in a proceeding for his admission to practice is broader in scope than in a disbarment proceeding

By asking admission the applicant puts his own good moral character directly in issue, and assumes the burden of proof as to that issue.

We interpreted the term "cause" to denote "every matter decided by a district court of appeal, and operating as a final decision or disposition thereof in that court

The court held that the applicant's conduct showed a lack of honesty and good character; therefore, the court denied the applicant's application for admission to the Bar

The crimes with which petitioner has been charged, and in two cases convicted, in connection with his civil disobedience, considered together with the surrounding circumstances, are not analogous to the type of criminal charges or other acts which have been held to justify non-admission to the bar

In a disbarment proceeding, the burden of showing that the attorney has failed to maintain the proper qualifications is on his accuser.

During this sixtyday period, the court had no authority to order the retention of custody of the prisoner, nor did the court have the authority to order a review of the habeas corpus petition once the prisoner had been discharged.