concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that on the record presented to the Court in this case, the Disciplinary Board did not err in finding that Edward Delk violated Disciplinary Rules 9-102(A), -102(B)(3), and -102(B)(4), all of which concern handling client funds. However, Delk’s appeal focuses not only upon the proof of his misconduct, but also upon the punishment he received. Delk made a timely assignment of error that the punishment he received “exceeds or parallels the punishment given in cases” where the attorneys’ misconduct was more egregious. I write separately because I am concerned that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Board is out of line with the punishments imposed in other similar cases of attorney misconduct.
Delk’s license was suspended for three years. In his brief, he refers to thirteen disciplinary cases, all concerning violations of Disciplinary Rule 9-102. These cases are not discussed by the majority. He points out that because of the requirements of confidentiality, he was unable to determine the number of disciplinary cases in which a violation of DR 9-102 resulted in a private reprimand. According to Delk, of the thirteen cases for which information was available, five resulted in a public reprimand, six resulted in a suspension of six months, one resulted in a suspension of two years, one resulted in a suspension of three years, and one resulted in revocation. Delk points out that in the cases involving the three-year suspension and the revocation, the attorneys had been convicted of crimes.
The information Delk has brought to the Court’s attention suggests a need for the Disciplinary Board to be attentive to the punishment meted out in similar cases as it decides the appropriate punishment in an individual case. The majority upholds the three-year suspension because of the facts of the instant case and because the sentence is within the limits that the Board is authorized to impose. Yet a comparison of the facts of this case with those of the disciplinary cases cited by Delk indicates that facts such as *195these have not been sufficient to support a penalty such as the one imposed here. If this last point has merit, then to say that Delk’s sentence is within the limits permitted by law simply ignores a deeper problem of how the law has been applied.
Cases of attorney misconduct are “ ‘special proceedings, peculiar to themselves, sui generis, disciplinary in nature, and of a summary character.’ ” Maddy v. District Committee, 205 Va. 652, 658, 139 S.E.2d 56, 60 (1964) (citations omitted). In Maddy, we explained further that disciplinary proceedings were not law suits between parties, but were inquiries or inquests into the conduct of attorneys. The Virginia State Bar is an arm of the Court. The disciplinary structure operated by the State Bar is meant to aid the Court in complying with its basic duty to preserve the integrity of the profession. Consequently, in disciplinary cases, our review is different in kind than in a normal appeal. Cf. Blue v. Seventh District Committee, 220 Va. 1056, 265 S.E.2d 753 (1980). In cases such as this, we must be concerned not only with the proper disposition of the individual case; we must also be concerned with what is best for the overall disciplinary system.
In the instant appeal, I perceive a problem that may affect the entire system. I am unable to discern from this record whether the Disciplinary Board has taken any precautions to insure that the punishment of attorneys does not vary, without justification, from district to district, case to case, male attorney to female attorney, black attorney to white attorney. To protect against the foregoing, I would institute certain changes in the way in which punishment is decided upon.
I am not able, on this review, to determine what punishment would be appropriate. I am able to say, however, that Delk has raised serious questions concerning the appropriateness of a three-year suspension. I would remand the case to the Disciplinary Board with directions for it to collect information on the facts and punishment in all cases involving violations of DR 9-102, including cases in which private reprimands were given. I would further direct the Disciplinary Board to reconsider Delk’s case and to impose a punishment which takes into consideration Delk’s misconduct in the instant case, any prior disciplinary proceedings involving Delk, and the punishment given other attorneys charged with similar violations.
In my view, a process such as the one I have suggested would help the Disciplinary Board to better judge the cases that come *196before it. It would also tend to make the administration of the disciplinary system more uniform.