Is a judicial review of a decision of the State Bar recommending disbarment or suspension from practice an analogy between criminal proceedings and the resolution of reasonable doubts in the course of judicial review?

[44 Cal.3d 203] [745 P.2d 932] The analogy to criminal proceedings and the resolution of reasonable doubts in favor of the attorney in the course of judicial review is also inconsistent with Business and Professions Code section 6083, subdivision (c), originally enacted in 1927 as part of the State Bar Act (Stats.1927, ch. 34, p. 41, 26), which provides that upon review of any decision of the State Bar recommending disbarment or suspension from practice "the burden is upon the petitioner to show wherein the decision or action is erroneous or unlawful." This statutory presumption is rendered meaningless, and the standard of review essentially left undefined, by perpetuation of the enigmatic proposition that, notwithstanding the burden the statute places on the petitioning attorney, in weighing the evidence "[a]ll reasonable doubts will be resolved in favor of the accused...." (Himmel v. State Bar (1971) 4 Cal.3d 786, 793-794, 94 Cal.Rptr. 825, 484 P.2d 993.)