(concurring).
I join in the majority opinion. I write to emphasize what I believe should be the proper standard for federal disciplinary action based upon a record compiled in state proceedings.
Each federal court has a broad independent power to discipline members of its bar, initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings, and impose sanctions predicated upon the record it has compiled. See Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 281, 77 S.Ct. 1274, 1 L.Ed.2d 1342 (1957). The independence of a district court acting in such fashion circumscribes our authority to review its disciplinary actions. See Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 529, 530, 6 L.Ed. 152 (1824). When, however, the disciplinary action is dependent on a record developed in state proceedings, I believe the district court should, absent exceptional circumstances, impose the same sanctions prescribed by the state.
This standard is founded upon the vital principle of comity, which represents a “belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44, 91 S.Ct. 746, 750, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Comity recognizes that the founding fathers created a system “in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States.” Id.
In the United States, admission to the bar and discipline of attorneys is peculiarly within the province of the states. See In re Dreier, 238 F.2d 68 (3d Cir. 1958). This is the practice in this circuit. New Jersey, for example, has a comprehensive and thoughtful system dealing with every aspect of admission to the bar and any subsequent discipline. Admission to the bar of the District Court of New Jersey is derivative, dependent upon admission to the bar of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Absent misconduct in the district court, disciplinary actions also are derivative in a sense, since they generally are based, as in the instant matter, on the previously compiled state record; they occur after the completion by the state of its proceedings.
The imposition of disbarment by the federal court when the state has imposed only suspension implicitly attacks the regularity and judgmental values of the state proceedings, implying that the sanction chosen by the state courts is *1106inappropriate. This result is bound to create tensions between the state and federal judiciaries.
A second important policy behind the need to avoid disparate sanctions by the federal and state courts is the maintenance of public confidence in our legal system and in the bar. Disbarment is designed to protect the public. In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968). The district court’s action permits Abrams to practice in the state, but not the federal, system. Such an anomaly can only lead to confusion in the minds of the public, which justifiably may speculate why an attorney not qualified to practice in a federal court has sufficient moral character to practice in the state court. Unless an exceptional reason of record justifies such disparate treatment, its effect will, in my opinion, render a grave disservice to the public.
The Supreme Court has recognized the vitality of these interests in Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917). The Court declared that it would afford the utmost respect in sanctioning members of its bar to the judgment of state proceedings unless there was a failure of due process, an infirmity of proof or some other “grave reason” not to give effect to the “natural consequences of the judgment . . . .” Id. at 51,'37 S.Ct. at 379. Forty years later, in Theard v. United States, supra, the Court, while reaffirming the independence of the federal courts in disciplinary matters, directed a district court imposing sanctions based upon state proceedings to be guided by the standards of Selling.
We also have noted the importance of following the judgment of the state courts in these matters. In re Dreier, 258 F.2d 68 (3d Cir. 1958). The District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania had denied Dreier’s application for admission to its bar on the ground that Dreier lacked good moral character due to events for which he had been suspended from the bar of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. Prior to his application for admission to the federal bar, the county bar had restored Dreier to membership in good standing. This court held that the federal district court could not enter an order amounting to permanent disbarment based upon events for which Dreier had paid the penalty imposed by, and had been restored to membership in good standing of, the bar which knew him best.
Finally, the teachings of Selling and Theard have not been lost upon the district courts throughout the country. Sixty-nine district courts responded to a survey asking whether they ever had deviated from disciplinary actions taken by the courts of their states. One district court, the Southern District of New York, responded that they had a rule permitting disparate discipline for the reasons announced in Selling or if “the misconduct established has been held by this Court to warrant substantially different discipline.” Rule 5(d). Only three other district courts cited instances of deviating from the action of their state courts. One such instance was In re Dreier, just discussed. In another, the disbarment by the district court was reversed for lack of due process. In re Jones, 506 F.2d 527 (8th Cir. 1974). In the third instance, the district court had appointed a special master who had conducted a three-day hearing and received much evidence not heard by the Alaskan Supreme Court. In re Mackay, 298 F.Supp. 170 (D.Alaska 1969).
In sum, I believe the district court should have followed the standards of Selling and Theard, which impliedly were recognized by this court in Dreier, and which are acknowledged in practice at least by the overwhelming majority of the district courts throughout the country. There is no contention that the state proceedings lacked due process, and the parties stipulated to the relevant facts. The district court did not ade*1107quately explicate, and I do not perceive, any grave reasons for choosing more severe punishment than imposed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Since the majority opinion, as I read it, does not preclude the district court from imposing the sanctions decreed by the state court, I join in the reversal.