dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s framing of the question presented on this appeal: whether the District Court abused its discretion by relying on the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to impose reciprocal discipline. I further agree that we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and concur with the majority’s review of Surrick’s belated First Amendment challenge. However, I part company with the majority’s analysis of the Due Process concerns raised by the District Court’s countenance of the mental standard and burden of proof ultimately applied to Surrick’s Commonwealth disciplinary charge. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s expansion of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct to prohibit reckless misstatements was unexpected under the clearly expressed law of the Commonwealth. Likewise, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s changes to the proof sufficient to establish attorney misrepresentations materially altered the evidentiary burdens used at Surrick’s hearing. The retroac*238tive application of both newly crafted standards impinged the guarantees of Due Process applicable to Surrick’s hearing, and presented a grave reason to reject the Commonwealth’s decision. Given these flaws, the use of the Commonwealth’s discipline as the basis for reciprocal federal discipline was unwarranted, and an abuse of the District Court’s discretion. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s reasoning and its decision.
I.
Like the majority, I begin by noting this Court’s extremely limited role in reviewing the disciplinary decisions of the District Court. In re Abrams, 521 F.2d 1094, 1101 (3d Cir.1975). The District Court, like all federal courts, enjoys a broad power to regulate and discipline admitted attorneys. In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 643, 105 S.Ct. 2874, 86 L.Ed.2d 504 (1985). However, the District Court’s “absolute and unfettered” disciplinary authority “may be circumscribed to the extent the district court, in imposing its disciplinary sanctions, relied upon a state’s legal or factual determinations.” In re Abrams, 521 F.2d at 1101. This limitation recognizes that “[wjhile a lawyer is admitted into a federal court by way of a state court, he is not automatically sent out of the federal court by the same route.” Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 281, 77 S.Ct. 1274, 1 L.Ed.2d 1342 (1957). Thus, while a state disciplinary decision “is entitled to respect, it is not conclusively binding on the federal courts.” In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 547, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968); Theard, 354 U.S. at 282, 77 S.Ct. 1274; In re Abrams, 521 F.2d at 1099-1100.
The Supreme Court has outlined three areas of constitutional concern where a federal court should not give controlling weight to a state disciplinary decision: 1) where the state procedure, “from want of notice or opportunity to be heard, was wanting in due process”; 2) where there was such an infirmity of proof “as to give rise to a clear conviction” that the state’s judgment cannot be accepted as final; or 3) where some other grave reason exists to reject the decision of the state court. Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917); see also R. of Attorney Conduct II.D (codified at R. of Civ. P. for the E.D. Pa. 83.6). This Court must examine the Commonwealth disciplinary proceedings to determine whether Surrick has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of these factors warranted a departure from the presumptive imposition of federal discipline. In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724-25 (9th Cir.2002); In re Jacobs, 44 F.3d 84, 88 (2d Cir.1994); In re Rosenthal, 854 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.1988).
II.
Like the majority, I also apply Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001) in evaluating whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s retroactive decisions satisfied federal Due Process. Attorney disciplinary hearings “are adversary proceedings of a quasi-criminal nature.” In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 551, 88 S.Ct. 1222; In re Abrams, 521 F.2d at 1099. Although attorneys are not entitled to the full panoply of protections afforded to criminal defendants, they are “entitled to procedural due process, which includes fair notice of the charge.” In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 550, 88 S.Ct. 1222; Comm, on Prof'l Ethics and Grievances of V.I. Bar Ass’n v. Johnson, 447 F.2d 169, 173 (3d Cir.1971). These procedural safeguards ensure that the nature of the state’s allegation is known before the commencement of a disciplinary hearing so that the accused attorney might meet the *239charges of misconduct. In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 551, 88 S.Ct. 1222.
These same concerns are reflected in the Supreme Court’s decision in Rogers v. Tennessee, which limited the retroactive application of judicial alterations of common law criminal doctrines. Rogers holds that while courts have substantial interpretive leeway, the Due Process clause limits “unjustified and unpredictable breaks with prior law” to protect against “vindictive or arbitrary judicial lawmaking.” Id. 532 U.S. at 462, 121 S.Ct. 1693. These concerns are heightened in the highly charged context of attorney disciplinary hearings, where “sensitive personal, institutional and societal interests” converge into a “jural environment that is fraught with tension and devoid of decisional and precedential guideposts.” In re Abrams, 521 F.2d at 1100. Therefore, judicial alteration of a state rule of professional conduct may not be applied retroactively “where it is ‘unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct at issue.’ ” Rogers, 532 U.S. at 462, 121 S.Ct. 1693 (quoting Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 354, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964)).
III.
Against this background, I consider the retroactive application of the recklessness standard to Surrick’s misstatements. Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) states that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” The plain language of RPC 8.4(c) does not specify a relevant state of mind, and the comments accompanying the rule are similarly silent.1 At the time of Surrick’s action in 1992, no decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had interpreted the mental state required for sanctions under the rule. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney A, 552 Pa. 223, 714 A.2d 402, 405-06 (1998).
Citing the text of RPC 8.4(c) and the absence of any interpretive authorities, the Special Hearing Committee of the Disciplinary Board in this case concluded that only knowingly false statements violate the rule. App. at 160. The Special Committee explained that Pennsylvania “did not adopt the language of the Model Rules which contained a more objective ‘knew or should have known’ standard.” App. at 160. Given this distinction, the use of an objective recklessness standard would “disregard[] the plain language of the Rule as promulgated in this Commonwealth.” App. at 162. The Special Committee concluded that because there was “no evidence whatsoever presented that Mr. Surrick knew that the accusations made were false,” no violation of RPC 8.4(c) was established.2 App. at 162-63.
The Disciplinary Board adopted these conclusions. The Board explained that “negligent or careless conduct was not sufficient to constitute a violation of Rule 8.4(c).” App. at 183. Significantly, the Board based this holding on its then recent decision in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rebert, No. 28 D.B. 95 (April 23, 1997) *240which also found no misconduct for merely mistaken, rather than intentional, misrepresentations.3 The Disciplinary Board’s reliance on Rebert is significant because that decision, recaptioned as Anonymous Attorney A, was reversed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court while Surrick’s case was on appeal. As I shall discuss, the Disciplinary Board’s reliance on Rebert to exonerate Surriek reveals that the Commonwealth’s designated disciplinary authority did not anticipate the standard that would be announced in Anonymous Attorney A. I thus turn to the facts, reasoning, and holding of that decision.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court began its opinion in Anonymous Attorney A by noting that no prior decision of either the Supreme Court or the Disciplinary Board had examined the requirement of intent under RPC 8.4(c). The Court explained that while an earlier case did address attorney misrepresentations under DR 1-102(A)(4) (the predecessor rule to RPC 8.4(c)), the case did not “address the mental culpability standard for an attorney’s alleged misrepresentations which Petitioner must meet in order to establish a violation. ...” Anonymous Attorney A, 714 A.2d at 405 (discussing Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Geisler, 532 Pa. 56, 614 A.2d 1134 (1992)). The Court concluded that because “Geisler focused on the discipline to be imposed ... rather than ... mental culpability, that opinion is of limited value in resolving the question presently before us.” Id.
The Court then turned to In re Anonymous, 126 D.B. 92, 26 Pa. D. & C. 4th 427, 1995 WL 864102 (1995), “[t]he sole Disciplinary Board decision addressing a mental culpability standard” under RPC 8.4(c) or DR 1-102(A)(4). Id. In re Anonymous involved a disciplinary charge arising out of an attorney’s failure to abide by the terms of an informal admonition. In exchange for an informal sanction, the attorney twice agreed to return a client’s file. Despite these representations to the Disciplinary Board, the attorney failed to return the materials, leading to an additional disciplinary charge for his false statement. The Disciplinary Board held that while RPC 8.4(c) “does not attach an independent state of mind requirement,” the common meaning of “misrepresentation” includes “an assertion not in accordance with the facts.” In re Anonymous, 26 Pa. D. & C. 4th at 436 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 903 (5th ed.1979)). Based on this definition, the Disciplinary Board concluded that the attorney’s negligent misrepresentation to the Board was “an assertion not in accordance with the facts,” and a violation of RPC 8.4(c). Id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court viewed “the egregiousness of the facts in In re Anonymous” as the basis for the discipline. Anonymous Attorney A 714 A.2d at 405. Given the severity of the facts, the Court concluded “that this decision is of no prec-edential value regarding the issue sub judi-ce.” Id. at 405-06.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court thus found no authorities explaining the mental state required under RPC 8.4(c), and “given the absence of precedent in Pennsylvania on the issue,” proceeded to canvass the case law from other jurisdictions. Id. at 406. After reviewing the decisions of four other states, the Supreme Court adopted the interpretation of Colorado’s analogous disciplinary rule and held that “no actual knowledge or intent to deceive” is necessary to prove a violation of RPC 8.4(c). Id. at 407. Instead, misconduct is established by recklessness, “the deliberate closing of one’s eyes to facts that one had a *241duty to see or state as fact things of which one was ignorant.” Id. The Court concluded that this holding “clarifies” the finding in Geisler. Id.
Anonymous Attorney A reveals three facts regarding the state of Pennsylvania law prior to 1998: 1) the text of RPC 8.4(c) does not contain a state of mind requirement; 2) the prior decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Geisler ■— the only Supreme Court decision to even consider attorney misrepresentations under DR 1 — 102(A)(4) or RPC 8.4(c)-did not impose a state of mind requirement; and 3) the prior decision of the Disciplinary Board in In re Anonymous had “no prece-dential value” regarding the state of mind requirement. These facts reveal a complete lack of Pennsylvania authority on the meaning of RPC 8.4(c), and explain the Supreme Court’s examination of cases outside the Commonwealth.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Surrick, 561 Pa. 167, 749 A.2d 441 (2000) essentially accepts these conclusions, and acknowledges that no case addressed the mental standard of RPC 8.4(c) before Anonymous Attorney A Id. at 444. Nonetheless, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court viewed the glass as half-empty, reasoning that because “[n]o precedent had declared only intentional conduct would violate” the rule, attorneys must have assumed that some lesser degree of conduct might be actionable. Id. at 445. To support this conclusion the Supreme Court pointed to the outcome in Geisler, the case that it previously characterized as offering “limited value” to this issue, and requiring the “guidance” offered by Colorado law. Id. at 444. Thus, with no more than a citation to Geisler and the unsupported statement that the recklessness standard was not unforeseeable, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that Anonymous Attorney A governed Surrick’s conduct some eight years before the decision. Given this thin reasoning, the original District Court panel to review Surrick’s case understandably found it “hard to escape the conclusion” that Anonymous Attorney A decided an issue of first impression. App. at 82.
The majority labors to bolster the Supreme Court’s scant analysis in an attempt to argue that given “the state of the law” in 1992, Surrick should reasonably have anticipated the decision in Anonymous Attorney A. First, the majority finds it “well-settled” that reckless conduct satisfied DR 1-102(A)(4), the predecessor to RPC 8.4(c). This assertion, however, lacks any citation to Pennsylvania law. Nor could any citation be included, given “the absence of precedent in Pennsylvania on the issue.” Anonymous Attorney A, 714 A.2d at 406. Instead, the majority cites to an opinion of the American Bar Association interpreting Model DR 1-102(A)(4). But as stated by the Special Committee, Pennsylvania did not adopt the language of the ABA Model Rule in promulgating RPC 8.4(c), and looking to the ABA’s interpretations of a objective standard would “disregard! ] the plain language of the Rule as promulgated in this Commonwealth.” App. at 162.
The majority then offers six state court opinions interpreting the disciplinary rules of their individual jurisdictions to extend to reckless misstatements. That fact seems to prove only that forty-four states, or more than three-quarters of the nation, had not extended their rules to include reckless conduct. Thus, while this survey might indeed prove some “general state of the law,” it does not support the majority’s conclusion that recklessness was a well-settled standard. More importantly, the majority does not accompany these citations with any principle of law that requires attorneys to conform their behavior *242not only to the rules of their jurisdiction, but to those promulgated in all others.
Next, the majority offers several decisions holding that misrepresentations are actionable as torts in Pennsylvania if made with a reckless disregard for the truth. See, e.g., Berda v. CBS, Inc., 881 F.2d 20, 27 (3d Cir.1989) (discussing tort claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation). But as the majority agrees, this Court has already held that a disciplinary proceeding “has consequences which remove it from the ordinary run of civil case.” In re Abrams, 521 F.2d at 1099. Using a common law doctrine to expand the meaning of a criminal statute is generally prohibited in Pennsylvania. 1 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 1928(b)(1) (West 2003) (stating that penal provisions shall be strictly construed). Strict construction is also required for the interpretation of retroactive laws. Id. § 1928(b)(2). The civil laws cited by the majority to justify the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s retroactive application of a new disciplinary ruling have little, if any, application to such a quasi-criminal proceeding.
Finally, the majority views the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to remand the case in Anonymous Attorney A as evidence that the recklessness standard was not new law. The correctness of the Supreme Court’s decision to remand that case, in light of the Disciplinary Board’s understanding that only intentional misrepresentations satisfied RPC 8.4(c) and the requirements of 1 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 1928(b)(2), is not before this Court. As succinctly stated by the District Court panel, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Anonymous Attorney A, as in Surrick, “settles the issue as a matter of Pennsylvania law.” App. at 82.
But it does not settle for this court the federal due process question whether it was fundamentally unfair for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through its highest court, in 2000, to suspend Mr. Surrick from the practice of law for five years because of actions taken at a time-nearly eight years before the court’s deeision-when there was an ‘absence of precedent in Pennsylvania’ that his actions were sanctionable.
App. at 82. Our focus on this appeal is whether the application of Anonymous Attorney A was unexpected or indefensible by reference to prior law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of Commonwealth law does not, therefore, substitute for our own independent Due Process analysis.
The majority’s reasoning does not support the conclusion that the recklessness standard of Anonymous Attorney A was foreseeable. More fundamentally, however, it is unhelpful to examine the general “state of the law” in other jurisdictions, or in other substantive areas, instead of the law of Pennsylvania regarding attorney misrepresentations. It is clear from Anonymous Attorney A that no prior law explained the application of RPC 8.4(c). It is clear from the record that the Special Hearing Committee and the full Disciplinary Board both believed that RPC 8.4(c) did not embrace objectively reckless misstatements. And it is clear from the Disciplinary Board’s citation to Rebert, the very case that would later announce the recklessness standard, that the Board did not anticipate the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision. Given the text of RPC 8.4(c), and the absence of any interpretive authority, it is not surprising that even the professional experience and institutional learning of Pennsylvania’s highest disciplinary authority was insufficient to predict the Supreme Court’s decision.
For these reasons, I am left with the same conclusion as the District Court panel: Anonymous Attorney A announced a *243new standard for attorney misconduct, one that was not obvious from the text of RPC 8.4(c), foreshadowed by prior decisions, or even suggested by the state of Pennsylvania disciplinary law. The better reading of that decision is the one offered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court itself: a new professional standard drawn from a Colorado Supreme Court decision. The decision to alter RPC 8.4(c) is, without question, entrusted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It is not ours to dispute that decision, or its retroactive application to Surrick’s misstatements. It is, however, the role of this Court to determine whether some grave reason exists to reject the District Court’s reliance on those judgments. The recklessness standard of Anonymous Attorney A was unexpected and indefensible under the law prior to Surrick’s conduct. Relying on the retroactive application of that holding to impose reciprocal federal discipline was clearly erroneous.
IV.
Similar concerns support my conclusion that the retroactive application of the burden-shifting framework announced in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Price, 557 Pa. 166, 732 A.2d 599 (1999) constitutes a grave reason to depart from the Commonwealth’s sanctions. I begin by outlining the elements of RPC 8.4(c) and the burden of proof applied by the Disciplinary Board at Surrick’s hearing. As explained by the Special Hearing Committee, RPC 8.4(c) required the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to prove that Surrick knew his allegations were false. App. at 163 (“The focus of the inquiry, in this case, was to Mr. Surrick’s state of mind in making these allegations and not to the ultimate truth or falsity of the allegations.”). The Disciplinary Board further explained that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel must prove Surrick’s actual subjective knowledge by clear and satisfactory evidence. App. at 178. Anonymous Attorney A changed the first of these requirements by adding an objective recklessness standard. Thus, under the new formulation, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel could prove Surrick actually knew his statements were false, or that he made the statements with reckless ignorance of the facts.
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Price then changed the second requirement. In Price, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that “the burden of proving misconduct lies with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,” that misconduct must be shown “by a preponderance of the evidence,” and that proof of the misconduct must be clear and satisfactory. Price, 732 A.2d at 603. The Supreme Court then noted that every fact asserted in a court pleading must be based on either the pleader’s personal knowledge, or the results of a reasonably diligent inquiry. Id. Synthesizing these requirements, Price held that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may satisfy its burden to prove the alleged misconduct simply by demonstrating that the statements at issue were false. Id. at 604. After this initial showing, “[t]he burden then shifts to the respondent to establish that the allegations are true or that he had an objective reasonable belief that the allegations were true, based upon a reasonably diligent inquiry.” Id.
The majority views this second alteration as unexceptional given that the burden of proof remains on the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and that the relevant quantum of evidence remains clear and satisfactory. This explanation, however, does not consider that what the Office must prove is no longer the attorney’s subjective knowledge, or the objective unreasonableness of the attorney’s belief. Instead, the Office need only prove the *244objective falsity of the statement, after which the attorney carries the burden to either prove the statement true, or to prove a reasonably diligent inquiry supported the erroneous belief. By formulating the burdens in this manner, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel is no longer required to prove (by any measure of evidence) that the attorney actually knew the statements were false, as was the practice before Anonymous Attorney A. And the Office need not even prove that the attorney failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry, as seemed to be the requirement after Anonymous Attorney A. Under Price, therefore, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel is relieved of proving the state of mind requirement added to RPC 8.4(c), and permitted to rest its case solely on the falsity of the statements at issue.
It bears repeating that as with the new recklessness standard, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Price is relevant only to this Court’s consideration of whether to afford Surrick’s Commonwealth discipline presumptive force. That question turns, as before, on whether the change in Price was unexpected or indefensible. The majority contends that it was not, quoting the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s view that “the pleader in a court proceeding bears the burden of establishing a factual basis upon which his allegations are based.” Price, 732 A.2d at 603. However, Price itself does not cite any authority for this claim, making its presumptive force suspect. Moreover, the relevant issue is not whether Surrick had a duty to verify the contents of his pleading. That duty is unquestionably established by Pa. R. Civ. P. 10234 and 1024, and Pennsylvania courts are authorized to impose appropriate sanctions for bad faith violations. Surrick’s misstatements might have been the basis for penalties before the Superior Court.
Price goes a step further, allowing an attorney’s duty of verification under the civil rules to automatically satisfy the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s case under RPC 8.4(c), if the attorney’s statements are false. Whether that is a desirable rule is of no moment. That it was an unexpected departure from prior practice is acknowledged by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s explanation that Price “set forth an objective standard” based on a newly crafted shifting burden of production. Surrick, 749 A.2d at 445.5
The process required during disciplinary proceedings includes, at a minimum, fair notice of the misconduct alleged. In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 550, 88 S.Ct. 1222; Johnson, 447 F.2d at 173. Knowledge of the violation charged, and hence the accompanying elements and burdens, is critical to mounting a proper defense. More importantly, adequate notice protects attorneys from the specter of vindictive and arbitrary discipline. Rogers, 532 U.S. at 462, 121 S.Ct. 1693. Like the District Court panel, I do not find it necessary to determine whether the retroactive application of Price to Surrick’s conduct violated federal Due Process. Instead, I would hold that the Due Process concerns implicit in the retroactive application of a new burden of proof provide a grave reason to *245reject the District Court’s reliance on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision. Price was unexpected and indefensible under prior law, and the retroactive application of its framework “should not be accepted as adequate for the purposes of disbarment from a federal court.” In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 552, 88 S.Ct. 1222 (Harlan, J., concurring). So viewed, the District Court’s decision was clearly erroneous.6
y.
I note finally that my disagreement with the majority’s analysis implies no view on the substance of Surrick’s allegations. With that observation, and for the foregoing reasons, I must dissent from the majority’s decision.
. Disciplinary Rule 1 — 102(A)(4), the precursor to RPC 8.4(c), also lacked a mental standard. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney A, 552 Pa. 223, 714 A.2d 402, 404-05 & n. 7 (1998).
. Despite this ruling, the Special Committee went on to opine that the evidence failed to show Surrick was unreasonable in his allegations. App. at 163. Although the Special Committee's statement that "we cannot conclude that he ... did not have a reasonable basis [] to make the assertions that he did” was unnecessary given its interpretation of RPC 8.4(c), its analysis of the evidence at the hearing is nonetheless notable.
. The unpublished decision of the Disciplinary Board in Rebert is available at http:// www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/discipIin-aryboard/dboardopinions/28DB95.0P.pdf.
. Rule 1023 was rescinded effective July 1, 2002. New Rules 1023.1-1023.4 continue the requirements of the old rule, and provide additional instruction on remedies for violations.
. The majority also views the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to apply this new framework to the conduct at issue in Price as evidence that the burden allocation was not new law. I find this reasoning irrelevant for the same reasons I disagree with majority’s reliance on the Supreme Court's decision to remand Anonymous Attorney A.
. Because I would hold that the retroactive application of Price is a sufficiently grave reason to reject the Commonwealth’s decision, I need not address Surrick’s additional Due Process arguments, or the majority’s analysis of those issues.