
    Ex parte Casablanca, Petitioner.
    Petition for Admission to the Bar.
    Decided January 21, 1924.
    Attorneys — Disbarment.—In order to show that an attorney who has not been permitted to take the oath of admission to the bar on account of bad conduct is worthy of being so admitted because he has reformed, the mere opinions of other attorneys to that effect is not sufficient, but it is necessary to set forth the facts which served as a basis for their opinions, and it is good practice in such eases for the attorneys to appear personally before the court so that it may have an opportunity to examine them.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
   Mr. Chibe Justice Del Toro

delivered the opinion of the court.

Several distinguished attorneys have petitioned the court in writing that Justo A. Casablanca be allowed to take the -oath of admission to the bar.

Considering the acts committed by the said Casablanca, as set out in our opinion in In Re Casablanca, 30 P. R. R. 68, something more than the petition containing the opinions of the signers would be necessary to justify this court in granting the petition. It is necessary to know the particular facts upon which the opinions are founded. In cases of this kind the attorneys who decide from direct observation and with full knowledge of the responsibility that they assume to petition for permission to take the oath because they consider it a matter of justice, should come personally before the court and state the reasons for their action.

Petition denied.

Justices Wolf, Alclrey and Hutchison concurred.

Mr. Justice Franco Soto took no part in the decision of this case.  