## Facts

- Max Shoop was admitted to practice in the highest court of New York and had practiced for more than five years.
- He applied for admission to the Philippine bar without examination under the Philippine Supreme Court’s admission rule allowing such admission for certain U.S.-admitted attorneys if the originating jurisdiction grants reciprocal treatment to Philippine lawyers.
- The Philippine rule conditioned eligibility on whether the U.S. state “by comity” grants Philippine attorneys the same privilege of admission without examination, and also made admission discretionary with the court.
- The court was informally advised that New York had previously admitted one Philippine lawyer without examination but had refused another in a later case.
- The New York decisions were not presented authoritatively; the court treated the reports as true for purposes of analyzing reciprocity.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s admission rules, properly interpreted, establish the reciprocity/comity required for admission without examination under the Philippine rule.
2. Whether discretionary refusal of a particular applicant in New York defeats a finding that New York’s rules confer reciprocal privileges in principle.
3. Whether, for purposes of New York’s admission rule, the Philippines can be treated as a “territory of the American Union” or as a jurisdiction whose jurisprudence is based on English common-law principles.

## Decision

- The court granted Shoop’s application and admitted him to the Philippine bar without examination.
- It held that the reciprocity/comity requirement was satisfied under New York’s rules as interpreted in light of the Philippines’ status and legal development.
- It ruled that isolated admissions or refusals in New York, made within that court’s discretion, were not conclusive of whether New York’s rules recognize reciprocal eligibility in principle.

## Legal Principles

- Where a rule conditions admission without examination on reciprocity, reciprocity is met when the other jurisdiction’s rules, reasonably interpreted, extend equivalent privileges in principle, even if individual applications have been denied under discretionary authority.
- Discretionary denial in a specific case does not necessarily negate the general reciprocal policy established by the governing admission rules.
- In evaluating reciprocity under U.S. state admission rules, the Philippines may be treated as a U.S. “territory” for the relevant rule’s meaning, and may also be treated as a jurisdiction substantially grounded in common-law principles due to the significant influence of American/English common-law jurisprudence on its legal system.

## Conclusion

The court admitted a New York lawyer without examination after concluding that New York’s admission rules, viewed as a general policy rather than through isolated discretionary outcomes, provided the reciprocal treatment required by the Philippine admission rule.


In re Shoop, 41 Phil. 213 (Phil. 1920)