Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    01 Max Shoop Application To Practice Law Digest

    Uploaded by

    clovis_contado
    Max Shoop applied for admission to practice law in the Philippines. He had been practicing for over 5 years in the highest court of New York. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Max Shoop was qualified to practice law in the Philippines. The Court's jurisprudence was based on English common law and Anglo-American common law. Given this, the New York rule allowing attorneys admitted to practice in other jurisdictions could apply to the Philippines. Therefore, the Court admitted Max Shoop to practice law in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    01 Max Shoop Application To Practice Law Digest

    Uploaded by

    clovis_contado
    40 views2 pages
    Max Shoop applied for admission to practice law in the Philippines. He had been practicing for over 5 years in the highest court of New York. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Max Shoop was qualified to practice law in the Philippines. The Court's jurisprudence was based on English common law and Anglo-American common law. Given this, the New York rule allowing attorneys admitted to practice in other jurisdictions could apply to the Philippines. Therefore, the Court admitted Max Shoop to practice law in the Philippines.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Max Shoop applied for admission to practice law in the Philippines. He had been practicing for over 5 years in the highest court of New York. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Max Shoop was qualified to practice law in the Philippines. The Court's jurisprudence was based on English common law and Anglo-American common law. Given this, the New York rule allowing attorneys admitted to practice in other jurisdictions could apply to the Philippines. Therefore, the Court admitted Max Shoop to practice law in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    40 views2 pages

    01 Max Shoop Application To Practice Law Digest

    Uploaded by

    clovis_contado
    Max Shoop applied for admission to practice law in the Philippines. He had been practicing for over 5 years in the highest court of New York. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Max Shoop was qualified to practice law in the Philippines. The Court's jurisprudence was based on English common law and Anglo-American common law. Given this, the New York rule allowing attorneys admitted to practice in other jurisdictions could apply to the Philippines. Therefore, the Court admitted Max Shoop to practice law in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    In re Application of MAX SHOOP for Admission to Practice Law

    41 Phil. 213 November 29, 1920 Ponente: MALCOLM, J.

    FACTS

    This is an application to the court by Max Shoop for admission to practice law in the
    Philippines Islands wherein the applicant has been admitted to practice and has
    practiced for more than five years in the highest court of the State of New York. With
    the New York rule cited by the court, the following are required for compliance for the
    admission of the applicant:

    (1) Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five years as a member of
    the bar in the highest law court in any other state or territory of the American Union or
    in the District of Columbia.

    (2) Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five years in another country
    whose jurisprudence is based on the principles of the English Common Law.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not Max Shoop is qualified to practice law in the Philippines.

    RULING

    Yes. Max Shoop is qualified to practice law in the Philippines. The decision is based
    upon the following conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court:

    (1) The Philippine Islands is an unorganized territory of the United States, under a civil
    government established by the Congress.

    (2) In interpreting and applying the bulk of the written laws of this jurisdiction, and in
    rendering its decision in cases not covered by the letter of the written law, this court
    relies upon the theories and precedents of Anglo- American cases, subject to the limited
    exception of those instances where the remnants of the Spanish written law present
    well-defined civil law theories and of the few cases where such precedents are
    inconsistent with local customs and institutions.

    (3) The jurisprudence of this jurisdiction is based upon the English Common Law in its
    present day form of Anglo-American Common Law to an almost exclusive extent.

    (4) By virtue of the foregoing, the New York rule, given a reasonable interpretation,
    permits conferring privileges on attorneys admitted to practice in the Philippine Islands
    similar to those privileges accorded by the rule of this court.

    SC added that their conclusion is further justified by the practical situation which has
    surrounded the Bench and Bar of the Philippine for many years and which there is very
    reason to believe will continue unabated in the future. In increasing degree, SC in the
    past two decades had cited and quoted from Anglo-American cases and authorities in
    its decisions. Thus, Max Shoop which has been practicing Anglo-American cases in his
    career may therefore pursue his law profession by virtue of this practical importance.
    FALLO

    Accordingly, the supporting papers filed by the applicant in this case showing to the
    satisfaction of the court his qualifications as an attorney-at-law, his petition is hereby
    granted, and he is admitted to the practice of law in the Philippine Islands. Our decision
    is based upon our interpretation of the New York rule, and it does not establish a
    precedent which may be controlling on this court with respect to future applications if
    our interpretation is not born out by the future enforcement of that rule by the New York
    court. So, ordered.

    You might also like