In re McCaffrey [1993] FMSC 6; 6 FSM Intrm. 20 (Pon. 1993) (19 February 1993)

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as In re McCaffrey[1993] FMSC 6; , 6 FSM Intrm. 20 (Pon. 1993)

In the Matter of the Admission to the Practice of Law of
JAMES McCAFFREY and RONALD MORONI,
Petitioners.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1993-006

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Andon L. Amaraich
Associate Justice

Submitted: February 5, 1993
Decided: February 19, 1993

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioners:
James McCaffrey (in pro per)
P.O. Box 672
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

Ronald Moroni (in pro per)
Office of Legislative Counsel
FSM Congress
P.O. Box PS-126
Palikir, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Attorney, Trial Counselor and Client ─ Admission
FSM Admission Rule III presumes that an arrangement of reciprocity must already exist between the FSM Court and another jurisdiction, in order for the rule to apply. When no such arrangement exists, it must first be created before Rule III can be applied. In re McCaffrey[1993] FMSC 6; , 6 FSM Intrm 20, 21 (Pon. 1993).

Attorney, Trial Counselor and Client ─ Admission
The fact that the Pohnpei Supreme Court admits attorneys of the FSM Bar does not alone create a formal arrangement of reciprocity. The arrangement must be formal, neither implied nor constructive. In re McCaffrey[1993] FMSC 6; , 6 FSM Intrm. 20, 22 (Pon. 1993).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

ANDON L. AMARAICH, Associate Justice:

Applicants James McCaffrey and Ronald Moroni move this Court for admission of each to practice, pursuant to FSM Admission Rule III. James McCaffrey is a resident of Pohnpei. He is admitted to practice in Pohnpei State, California, the Marshall Islands, and the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ronald Moroni is also a resident of Pohnpei. He is admitted to practice in Pohnpei State and in Guam.

For reasons set out below, the motion is denied.

I. MOTION FOR ADMISSION

Applicants' motion is based on FSM Admission Rule III which allows for admission where there exists an arrangement of reciprocal admission of attorneys between this jurisdiction and another. Applicants claim that their admission to Pohnpei State entitles them to admission by reciprocity, since the Pohnpei Supreme Court admits attorneys from the FSM Bar.

There is no FSM case law interpreting Rule III. Therefore, it is a case of first impression. For this reason, an articulation of what the rule means is in order.

II. RULE III

FSM Admission Rule III states in its entirety:

The Court favors reciprocal bar admission arrangements with other jurisdictions. The Court will cooperate as appropriate with attorneys admitted to practice in other jurisdictions in their attempts to encourage such reciprocal arrangements, and will give favorable consideration to requests for admission to practice before the Federated States of Micronesia Supreme Court by applicants licensed to practice in other jurisdictions, the Federated States of Micronesia is sought on the same terms that would be available to a Federated States of Micronesia practitioner in the jurisdiction in which the applicant is admitted.

The first statement made by the rule is that reciprocal arrangements with other jurisdictions are favored. This presumes that an arrangement must already exist between this jurisdiction and another, in order for the rule to apply. The second statement is that the Court will cooperate as appropriate with attorneys who wish to encourage such arrangements with other jurisdictions, or, presumably, to create them. However, when no such arrangement exists, it must first be created before Rule III may be applied. Therefore, the Court must first look to whether a formal arrangement of reciprocal admission exists between this Court and the Pohnpei State court.

III. APPLICATION

Applicants seek reciprocity based on the assertion that the Pohnpei Supreme Court routinely admits attorneys who appear before this Court. Applicants argue that Pohnpei is a jurisdiction and is therefore deserving a reciprocity. However, that is not the issue. It is presumed that Pohnpei is a jurisdiction. Indeed, with its own constitution, courts, and exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, there can be no question that Pohnpei is a jurisdiction. The issue is whether or not a formal arrangement of reciprocity exists between the Pohnpei and FSM jurisdictions.

There is no such formal arrangement between the two jurisdictions. The fact that the state court admits attorneys of the FSM Bar does not alone create a formal arrangement of reciprocity. The arrangement must be formal, neither implied nor constructive.

Applicants argue that "FSM practitioners have been the beneficiaries of the Pohnpei Supreme Court's grant of reciprocity. Applicants' Memorandum of Law at 2. Yet, Applicants also state that "[c]urrently, one may be admitted upon an oral exam by the Pohnpei Supreme Court or on the basis of reciprocity if one has been admitted as an FSM practitioner." This statement is inconsistent with the fact that no reciprocal arrangement exists between the two jurisdictions. Therefore, whatever "benefit" FSM practitioners receive at the state court, it cannot be due to reciprocity. Furthermore, if an oral examination is administered by the Pohnpei Supreme Court, then it follows that no such arrangement is presumed by that court either. A reciprocal arrangement would mean that no examination is needed at all. As it is, both this Court and the Pohnpei Supreme Court examine their applicants before admitting them. No formal arrangement exists. Therefore, there is no reciprocity of admission between the FSM and Pohnpei bars.

As a result, Applicants motion must be denied. Applicants are encouraged to take the next FSM Bar Examination and may move for a special appearance in a particular case, pursuant to FSM Admission Rule IV(A). Such motions are often granted on the condition that the movant take and pass the next FSM Bar examination.