(concurring) :
I concur in the majority opinion.
The relationship between state and federal courts has always been a delicate one; maintaining the appropriate balance between the dual sovereignties existing under our constitutional system is difficult at best. Overlapping jurisdictions between state and federal courts contribute to potential difficulties and this is particularly true when a proceeding in one court system is alleged to infringe rights susceptible of vindication in the other. To minimize the potential for conflict between the state and federal systems, federal court jurisdiction has been intentionally limited.1
Only last Term, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the vitality of the comity doctrine, which commands federal court restraint in the face of state proceedings in progress. In a series of cases dealing with pending state criminal prosecutions, the Court held that, barring exceptional circumstances, federal courts should not enjoin such proceedings.2 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971); Boyle v. Landry, 401 U.S. 77, 91 S.Ct. 758, 27 L.Ed.2d 696 (1971); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 91 S.Ct. 674, 27 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971); Dyson v. Stein, 401 U.S. 200, 91 S.Ct. 769, 27 L.Ed.2d 781 (1971); Byrne v. Karalexis, 401 U.S. 216, 91 S.Ct. 777, 27 L.Ed.2d 792 (1971). The Court specifically noted that the mere existence of a “chilling effect [on First Amendment freedoms] should not by itself justify federal intervention.” Younger v. Harris, supra, 401 U.S. at 50, 91 S.Ct. at 753. “Only in cases of proven harass-"] ment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate.” Perez v. Ledesma, supra, 401 U.S. 85, 91 S.Ct. 677. “Certain types of injury, in particular, the cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of having to *1213defend against a single criminal prosecution could not by themselves be considered ‘irreparable’ in the special legal sense of that term. Instead, the threat to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights must be one that cannot be eliminated by his defense against a single criminal prosecution.” Younger v. Harris, supra, 401 U.S. at 46, 91 S.Ct. at 751.
While these principles were stated in cases involving state criminal proceedings, I believe that they apply with equal force to proceedings regarding the conduct of members of the state bar. The state “has a legitimate interest in determining whether [an individual] has the qualities of character and the professional competence requisite to the practice of law.” Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1, 7, 91 S.Ct. 702, 706, 27 L.Ed.2d 639 (1971). Indeed the state’s responsibility in these matters is primary. A lawyer to practice anywhere in the United States must first be admitted to the bar of one of the states. In New York, as in all of the states, the proper functioning of the judicial system depends upon the competence and integrity of the members of the bar and their compliance with appropriate standards of professional responsibility. Thus, when state courts do initiate an inquiry into an attorney’s conduct, they deal with a matter of such great importance to the state and its citizens that federal courts should be as slow to intervene in these proceedings as in state criminal proceedings.3
Erdmann urges that the presumption against federal court intervention has been overcome by his allegation of “bad faith” in the initiation of the state disciplinary proceeding. However, his complaint merely alleges that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings has “the specific purpose and the effect of depriving plaintiff of his right [s] . under the First Amendment. . . .” In his supporting affidavit, he alleges no more than that “it is unique for the Appellate Division to overrule” its Grievance Committee and that the pendency of the proceeding “harass [es], discourage [s] and prevent[s]” him from exercising his First Amendment rights. These allegations do not reach the level of “bad faith” warranting federal intervention. It is the judges and not the Grievance Committee who have the responsibility for deciding whether to begin disciplinary proceedings. N.Y.Jud. Law § 90. The allegation that the judges have acted with the intention of chilling Erdmann in the exercise of his First Amendment rights can be presented and adjudicated in the state courts, with appeal to the Supreme Court. Only were it abundantly clear that Erdmann had been subjected to multiple prosecution or continued harassment or action under a patently unconstitutional statute would federal injunctive relief be available. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965); Younger v. Harris, supra, 401 U.S. at 53-55, 91 S.Ct. 746.4
Erdmann, additionally, has completely failed to allege irreparable injury sufficient to any equitable relief. Nothing could be clearer from the Court’s opinion in Younger v. Harris that the chilling of First Amendment rights “should not by itself justify federal intervention” 401 U.S. at 50, 91 S.Ct. at 753, and 1 that it does not constitute irreparable injury “in the special legal sense of that term.” 401 U.S. at 46, 91 S.Ct. at 751. As this is his only allegation of irrepa-*1214rabie injury and as his claim is susceptible of adjudication in the state court, he is not entitled to injunctive relief and the complaint should be dismissed.5
. E. g., U.S.Const, art. III; U.S.Const. amend. XI; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1341-42, 2281, 2283-84; Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941); Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
. In the context of a pending state proceeding, declaratory relief would be as disruptive as injunctive relief and neither is here warranted. See Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971).
. Erdmann’s argument that this is an administrative, not judicial, proceeding is thus wide of the mark. While such inquiry is relevant to the question of the applicability of the federal Anti-Injunctive Statute, 28 U.S.C. 2283, which bars injunctions only in “proceedings in a State court,” withholding of relief on grounds of comity demands an analysis of the state nnd federal interests involved and not mere labeling of a proceeding ns “administrative” or “judicial.”
. For a discussion of bad faith enforcement warranting federal intervention, see Note, The Supreme Court, 1970 Term, 85 Harv.L.Rev. 3, 314 (1971).
. The district court dismissed the complaint erroneously relying on this court’s decision in Zuckerman v. Appellate Division, 421 F.2d 625 (2d Cir. 1970). Erdmann brought this action against the judges and clerk of the First Department as individuals thus bypassing the strictures of the Eleventh Amendment, see Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). And, as Judge Friendly demonstrated in Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 299 F.Supp. 117 (S.D.N.Y.1969), aff’d on other grounds, 401 U.S. 154, 91 S.Ct. 720, 27 L.Ed.2d 749 (1971), state judges need no immunity against federal civil rights suits seeking injunctive relief. The complaint should be dismissed, however, as Erdmann lias failed to make allegations sufficient to warrant federal injunctive relief.