The State Bar, through its local administrative committee for the county of Fresno, gave notice to Douglas Thompson Winne in the form of an order to show cause, that it would on May 23, 1928, at a certain time and place in the city of Fresno investigate certain conduct as shown in three separate specifications on the part, of said Winne as an attorney at law and a member of The State Bar, alleged to be in violation of his oath and duty as an attorney and counselor at law, involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption. The investigation took place as noticed with said Winne present thereat. After consideration of the evidence before it the committee determined that it was insufficient to warrant any disciplinary recommendation on its part as to the first two specifications, and they may be dismissed from further consideration. The third specification was as follows:

As to this specification the committee found as follows: “That said accused was, and for many years last past has been, an attorney and counselor at law, admitted to practice such profession in the state of California, and has practiced the same, and is now practicing the same in the city of Fresno, county of Fresno, state of California, and that said accused now is an active member of The State Bar of California;

“That said accused was the attorney for one Marabelle Bandy, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Robert Haskel Bandy, which said estate was probated in the superior court of the state of California in and for the county of Fresno, No. 9493, Department No. 1, in the year 1927;

“That said accused, on behalf of said administratrix, filed a petition for letters of administration in the matter of said estate;

“That letters were thereafter duly issued to the said Marabelle Bandy;

“That an inventory and appraisement was issued in said matters and the same was prepared by the accused;

“That Charles A. Hill, one of the inheritance tax appraisers of the state of California in and for the county of Fresno, was by the said superior court appointed sole appraiser of said estate;

“That said accused listed and set out in typewriting in Said inventory certain properties belonging to said estate, and delivered said inventory to said Charles A. Hill, as such appraiser, for appraisement of said property so listed therein;

“That said appraiser appraised the said items of property so listed and set out in said inventory and returned said inventory, with his appraisement thereon of said property, to the accused for the accused to file said inventory and appraisement with the county clerk of the county of Fresno, state of California, and said appraiser at the same time delivered to said accused a certificate that no inheritance tax was payable on said estate;

“That at the time said appraiser delivered said inventory and appraisement to said accused the same was completely typewritten;

“That thereafter said accused, in his own handwriting, in ink, added the following item to said inventory and appraisement:

Said committee, as a conclusion from the above findings, determined that the accused was guilty of unprofessional conduct involving moral turpitude and recommended:

On September 14, 1928, the Board of Governors of The State Bar passed the following resolution:

The record having been fully filed in this court by the Board of Governors on September 28, 1928, said Winne filed an unverified application for a review of the proceedings. Besides being unverified, it is also redundant in its reference to matters foreign to the particular matter under investigation by the local committee as shown by its findings, and contains no citation of evidence to support applicant’s principal contention of a want of evidence to support the findings and determination of the local administrative committee. The applicant has filed no brief, but has offered for filing an “Argument” which may be characterized rather as a plea in extenuation or for leniency. The application suggests certain legal questions, the principal one being as to the constitutionality of the State Bar Act (Stats. 1927, p. 38), recently passed upon adversely to applicant’s contention in State Bar of California v. Superior Court, etc. (L. A. No. 11141), 207 Cal. 323 [ 278 Pac. 432 ], decided May 31, 1929.

It is further contended, as the State Bar Act was not in effect at the time the alleged unprofessional acts were committed, that an investigation of them under the authority of the act is ex post facto. The investigation not being criminal, but in the nature of a special proceeding to determine whether or not the applicant has exercised the privilege of franchise to practice law in conformity with the statutes and ethics of the legal profession, and section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defining the causes for which an attorney may be disbarred or suspended, being in effect at the time of the alleged unprofessional acts, the contention is without merit. (See Cohen v. Wright, 22 Cal. 293 ; In re Vaughan, 189 Cal. 496 [24 A. L. R. 858, 209 Pac. 353 ]; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505 [ 47 L. Ed. 563 , 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390]; Foster v. Board of Police Commrs., 102 Cal. 483 [ 41 Am. St. Rep. 194 , 37 Pac. 763 ]; Hawker v. State of New York, 170 U. S. 189 [ 42 L. Ed. 1002 , 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes].)

Certain acts of the Board of Governors with relation to procedural matters are also complained of, but are without merit. The principal reliance of applicant is, and must be, upon his contention of insufficiency of evidence to warrant or justify the determination of the Board of Governors. Applicant has not complied with the rule which requires that his application “must fairly state all the material- evidence relative to the point as to which such want of evidence is claimed to exist. ’ ’ The record has been carefully read and considered and we think it amply supports the recommendations of the Board of Governors.

It is ordered, therefore, that Douglas Thompson Winne be suspended from all the rights and privileges of an attorney at law for the period of one year from and after the date of the filing of this order.