2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

6-2-2006 

# S urrick v . Ki llion

P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2615

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" S urr ick v . Ki ll ion" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 806. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/806P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 2615

ROBER T B. S URRI CK

v. P A U L J. K IL L IO N , C H IE F C O U N S E L , P E N N S Y L V A N IA O F F IC E O F D IS C IP L IN A R Y C O U N S E L , IN H IS OFFI CI AL C APA CI TY; RA LPH J

. CA PP Y, CH I EF J US T I CE OF T HE S UP RE M E CO UR T OF P E NNS YL VANI A, I N HI S OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y; RONALD D. CAS TI LL E; RUS S EL L M

. NI GRO; S AND RA S C H U L T Z N E W M A N ; T H O M A S G

. S A Y L O R ; J. M I CH AE L E AKI N; M AX B AE R, J US T I CE S OF T HE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA , A L L IN T H E IR

OFFI CI AL C APA CI TY
P a u l J . K illio n , A ppel l ant

_________ A p p e a l f ro m Ju d g m e n t o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia2 ( D

. C

. C i v. N o. 04- C V

- 05668) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames T. G i l es Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay9, 2006
B efore: B A R R Y , S M ITH and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed J une 2, 2006 )

____________ OPI NI ON OF TH E CO UR T

A

. T ay l orW i l l i ams, E s q. A d m in istra tiv e O f

f ice o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C o u rts 1515 M arketSt r eet , Sui t e 1414 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102
C ouns el f orAppel l ant P a u l K ill io n , et a l.
D avi d R udovs ky , E s q. J onathan H

. Fei nber g, E s q. K ai r y s , R udovs ky , E ps t ei n & M es s i ng 924 C herr ySt r eet , Sui t e 500 Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19107
Set h F. K r ei m er , E s q. 3400 C hes t nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 191043 C ouns el f orAppel l ee Rober tSur r i ck
A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge:
Paul J

. K i l l i on, C hi ef Counsel of t he C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a’ s O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el ( “O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i nary C ouns el ”) , appea l s fr om the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a’ s or dergr ant i ng su m m aryjud g m en t to R o b ert S u rri ck in this de clarato ry j udgm entact i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdecl ar ed thatSur r i ck, an att o rne yauthor i zed t o pr act i ce be for e the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a but s us pended by t he B ar of t he Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a (“ P en ns y l vani a B ar ”) , i s perm i t t ed t o m ai nt ai n a law o f f ice in th e C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia f

o r th e so le p u rp o se o f

su p p o rtin g h is p ra c tice b e f o re th e f

e d e ra l co u rt, su b ject t o ce rta in c o n d it ion s. T h e O ff ice o f D isci p li n ary C o u n se l ra ise s tw o c h a llen g e s to o u r ju risd ictio n . F irst, it co n tend s tha t th is ap p ea l has b ee n ren d ere d m o o t b yS u rri ck ’s al l eged fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h the condi t i ons i m pos ed byt he Di s t r i c tCou r t

. Se c o n d , i ta r g u e s , a s i td i d b e f o r e th e Di s t r i ct C our t , t hatt hi s cas e i s notr i pe foradj u d icat i on. A s t o the m er i t s , t he O ffi ce of

D i s ci pli naryC ouns el ar gues t hatt he D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e ter m in in g th a t S u rric k is p e rm itt e d to m ai nt ai n a l aw offi ce i n Penns y l vani a t o s upport h i s fede r al pr act i ce, an d ur ges us t o adoptt he Supr eme C our tof Pen n s y l vani a’ s anal y s i s i n O f f i ce of D is ci pl i nar y C ouns el

v. Mar cone , 8 5 5 A

. 2 d 6 5 4 (P a. 20 0 4 ).
A lth o u g h w e c o n c lu d e th a t w e h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th is appea l and w il l affi r m t he j udgm entfort he r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e bel i ev e that Sur r i ck has notcompl i ed w i t h t he4 condi t i ons i m pos ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t

. S peci fi cal l y , the D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed Surr i ck t o “comm ence an appl i cat i on for r ei ns t at ementt o t he B arof the S u p rem e C our tbyA pr i l 15, 2 0 0 5 ,” la ter e x ten d e d to M a y1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , em p h a siz in g th a t:
t he req u ir em en t tha t P lai n ti ff a ppl yfor r ei ns t at ementt o t he B ar of t he Supr eme C our tof P e n n sy lv a n ia w h ile b e in g p e rm itt e d to m a in tain an o f f ice fo r i ts prac ti ce b ef o re the E astern D i s t ri ct , r efl ect s thi s C ourt ’ s under s t andi ng t hat by reinst at i ng the Pl ai nt i ff t o pr act i ce be for e the E as t ern D i s t r i ctbefor e hi s s us pens i on fr om pract i ce i n the c o u rt s of P enn sy l van i a exp i res , P lain tiff w a s g iv e n a tem p o ra ry p a ss to re su m e h is Feder al l aw pr act i ce a nd nota perm anent abs ol ut i on fr om r equi r ement s and over s i ghtof the C om m onw eal t h. (D . C t. O p . a t 2 5 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) .)
Sur r i ck has not compl i ed i n good fai t h w i t h thi s or derand h a s ig n o re d th e D istric t C o u rt’ s a d m o n iti o n th a t h e w a s o n ly gr ant ed a t empora r ypas s . A l t hough Surr i ck w entt hr ough the m ot i ons of r eappl y i ng t o t he Penns y l vani a B ar , he has thus fa r re f u se d to c o m p lyw ith th e r e q u ire m e n ts f o r re in sta tem e n t, t o w i t , pay i ng t he cos t s of the di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs and enr ol l i ng i n r equi r ed C ont i nui ng L egal E ducat i on ( “C L E ”) cour s es . N onethel es s , Sur r i ck has as s ert ed t o t hi s C our tthathe w i l l payt h e co sts a nd enr ol l i n t he cour s es i f he pr evai l s on a p p e a l

. Al t h o u g h we d o n o te x c u s e h i s d i l a t o r yc o n d u c t , we decl i ne t o i m pos e the d rac o ni an puni s hm entof vac at i ng t he5 D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s car eful l ycr aft ed or derand det erm i ni ng t he ques t i on of fede r al pr eempt i on t o be moot

. I ns t ead, as det ai l ed i n Par tV I , w e w i l l di r ectSur r i ck t o s at i s fy fo r t hw i t h t he re q u ir e m e n ts f

o r r e in s ta te m e n t to th e P e n n s y lv a n ia B a r.

I.
Sur r i ck w as admi t t ed to the Penns y l vani a B ari n 1961 an d to the B ar o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e E astern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a (“Ea st ern D i stri ctof P enn sy l va n ia B ar” ) i n 1 9 6 6

. O n M a rc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 0 , fo ll o w ing d isci p li n ary pr ocee di ngs , Sur r i ck w as s us pended fr om t he Penns y l vani a B ar forfi v e y ear s . T he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a or der ed a re c ip ro c a l s u s p e n s io n o f th ir ty m o n th s . I

n r e Sur r i ck , 2 0 0 1 WL 1 8 2 3 9 4 5 (E .D . P a ., J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 ), a ff’d , 3 3 8 F

. 3 d 2 2 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ).
T h e o f f e n s e t h a tl e d t o s u s p e n s i o n s i n t h e t wo j uri sdi ct i on s w as the d et erm i nati on t hat he “act ed w i t h reckl ess di s r egar d of the trut h w hen he l evel ed ac cus at i ons of ca s e fi xi ng agai ns tcert ai n j ur i s t s i n a pl eadi ng fi l ed i n the Super i orC our tof Penns y lvani a. ” O

f f i ce of D is ci pl i nar y C ouns el

v. Sur r i ck , 749 A

. 2d 441, 442 ( Pa. 2000)

. I n i t s or deri m pos i ng the s us pens i on, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tnot ed:
T he r es pondent us es hi s s el f- aggr andi zed r ol e as a c ru sa d e r fo r j u stic e a s a s h ield f ro m a n yliab ili ty for hi s act i ons w hi l e s i m ul t aneous l yar gui ng that a n y ju d icia l d e c isio n in c o n tra v e n tio n o f h is pos i t i on pr oves t hathe i s a vi ct i m of a j udi ci al cons pi racy . R es pondent ’ s per s onal vi ew s on6 j ud i c i a l r e f

o rm cannotexcus e hi s r eckl es s conduct i n bri ng i ng un subst anti at ed cl ai m s ag ai nst in d iv id u a l m e m b e rs o f

th e ju d ic ia ry. * * * R es pond e n t ’ s pr edi l ect i on t o unpr ovoked ch a r a c t e ra s s a s s i n a t i o n whe n e v e rh e r e c e i v e s an a d v e rse ru lin g e x h ib its c o n d u c t th a t ca lls in to q u e stio n h is a b ili tyto c o n ti n u e p ra c ticin g law in a f it m a n n e r. * * * W h e n a law y e r h o ld s th e tru th to b e o f so little val ue thati tcan be r eckl es s l ydi s r egar ded w hen hi s t emper and per s onal par anoi a di ct at e, that l aw y ers houl d notbe perm itt ed t o r epr es entt he publ i c bef

or e the court s of thi s C om m onw eal t h.
I d. at447, 449.
Sur r i ck w as r eadm i t t ed t o t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a B aron M ay17, 2 0 0 4

. O n A ugus t16, 2004, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ti s s ued i t s decisi o n i n M ar cone , w h ich i nvol ved di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs agai ns tanother P e n n s y l v a n i a a t t o r n e y . Th e r e i n , t h e P e n n s y l v a ni a S u p r e me C our thel d t hatan a tt orneys us pended f r om pr act i ce i n the P en n sy lv an ia co u rt s b u t r ea d m itted to the f ed era l distri ct co u rt co u ld notm ai nt ai n a l aw offi ce i n t he C om m onw eal t h s o l ong a s h e re m a in s u n a u th o riz e d to p ra c tice in th e P e n n sy lv a n ia s tate c o u rt s . Mar cone , 855 A

. 2d at668.7 O n D ec em b er 7 , 2 0 0 4 , S u rri ck init iat ed this de clarato ry jud g m en t acti o n ag ains t Pa u l K il li o n , C h ief D isci p li n ary C ouns e l o f

t h e Off i c e o f Di s c i p l i n a r yCou n s e l , a n d th e n a med j us t i ces of the Pennsy l vani a Supr eme C our t , al l egi ng t hatthe deci s i on i n Mar cone w as contr aryt o fede r al l aw and thathe re a so n a b lyf

e a re d th a t th e O f

f ice o f D isc ip lin a ryC o u n se l w o u ld admi ni s t ers anct i ons i f he w er e t o open a l aw o ff ic e. Sur r i ck so u g h t a d e c lar a tio n th a t h e is p e rm itt e d to o p e n a law o f f ice in P e n n sy l van i a for t he ex cl usi ve p urpose o f supp ort i ng his p r act i ce be for e the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a and a p reli m in a ryinjun cti o n en joining the O ff

ice o f D isci p li n ary C ouns el and the named j us t i ces fr om di s ci pl i ni n g hi m for m ai nt ai ni ng s uch an offi ce. Sur r i ck’ s cl ai m s w er e pr edi cat ed on t he Supr emacyC l aus e of t he U ni t ed S t at es C ons t i tut i on and the Fi r s tA m endment

. T he O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el s ubs equent l ym oved t o di s m i s s Sur r i ck’ s compl ai nt , ar gui ng, in tera lia , t hathi s cl ai m s w er e notr i pe and thathi s compl ai nt f a ile d to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f c o u ld b e g ra n te d

. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d hear i ngs on Jan uary24 and M ar ch 7, 2005. A tt hose h ear i ngs , Sur r i ck t es t i fi ed thathe i nt ends t o open and mai nt ai n an off i ce t o s up p o rt h is pr act i ce befor e the fe der al court s . H e t es t i fi ed thathe i nt ends t o pr act i ce i n t he medi cal m al pr act i ce f i el d, s ui ng t hos e w ho br i ng “fr i vol ous ” mal pr act i ce l aw s ui ts a g ai ns tdoct or s . H e t es t i fi ed th a t su c h law su its w o u ld b e b ro u g h t in f e d e ra l co u rt p u rsu a n t to fe d era l dive rsi tyjuri sd ict ion

. T h e O ff ice o f D is c ipli n ary C ouns el r es ponded bypr es ent i ng expertt es t i m onythat , us i ng m odern t echnol ogy , at t orney s ar e now abl e t o p r act i ce l aw w i t houta tr adi t i onal l aw offi ce.T he D i s t r i ctC our tl at eramended i t s or der t o pr ovi de 1 Sur r i ck unt i l M ay15, 2005, t o comm ence an appl i cat i on. 8 O n A pr i l 20, 2 005, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed l i m i t ed decl ar at or yr el i ef i n Sur r i ck’ s favor , decl ar i ng t hatSur r i ck “may open a l egal o ff

ice fo rt he pr act i ce of

l aw befor e the U ni t ed S tate s D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e E a ste rn D istric t” o f P e n n s y lv a n ia subjectt o eightcon dit i on s: (a) P lai n ti ff

is au tho ri ze d b ythe E astern D i s t r i ct ’ s r ei ns t at ementO r dert o open and m ai nt ai n a l aw offi ce locat ed at1332 R i t t er St r eeti n Phi l adel phi a, PA s ol el yfor th e p ra c tice o f

law b e f o re th is c o u rt; (b) Pl ai nt i ff s hal l com m en ce an ap p li ca ti o n for r e i n s t a t e me n tt o th e Ba ro f th e S u p r e me C our tof P enns y l vani a byA pr i l 15, 2005 [sic]; 1 ( c) T her e s hal l not be any s i gns on t he out s i de o f p lain tiff ’s o f

f ice b u ild in g re f

lec tin g h is fede r a l p r a c t i c e a n d p l a i n t i f f s h a l l n ot advert ise h i s pr act i ce byw ayof out door adv ert i sem ent orpo st ers ; (d ) P lain tiff sh a ll p ro v id e a n in sc rip tio n o n a ll st at i on ary[si c], bu si ness cards , fi l es, w ebs i t es o r o ther d ocument s or c o rre sp o n d e n c e c lea rlyd e li n e a tin g th a t h is pr act i ce of

l aw i s s t r i ct l yl i m i t ed t o cas es orcontr over s i es w i thi n the j ur i s di ct i on of t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC ourt fo rthe9 E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a; ( e) Pl ai nt iff s hal l notpr ovi de l egal advi ce or cons ul t at i on on s t at e l aw m at te r s and w her e appr opr i at e w i l l r efe rt o ot her at t orney s anyst at e cou rtcases or i nq uir i es; ( f) Pu r s uantt o hi s s t atus as an admi t t ed a tto rn e yb e f

o re th e E a s ter n D istric t, p lain tiff is a u th o riz e d to re p re se n t clie n ts o n a ll m a tters w ith in th e ju risd ictio n o f th is c o u rt; ( g) Pl ai nt i ff s hal l pr om pt l y i nform al l per s ons se e k in g h is le g a l se rv ice s th a t h e is o n ly a dmi t t e d t o p r a c t i c e be fo r e the U

. S. D i s t r i ctC o u rt of the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a andi s u n d e rs u s pens i on fr om p ra c tice in , a n d re sp e c tin g leg a l m a tters to be fi l ed i n, t he st at e co u r t s of Penns y l vani a. ( h) Pl ai nt i ff s hal l advi s e cl i ent s t hati f they h ave a[] compl ai nt [] r egar di ng t he ethi cs of hi s l egal r epr es ent at i on . . . theym ay co n tact th e C h ief J u d g e f o r th e E astern D i s t r i ctas w el l as t he O ffi ce of D isc ip lin a ryC o u n se l.
T he D i s t r i ctC our td e n i e d Sur r i ck’ s r eques tfori nj unct i ve rel i ef, and decli ned t o reach h i s Fir stA m end m ent ar gu m ents

. O n M ay13, 2005, Sur r i ck s ubm i t t ed an a ppl i cati on for r ei ns t at ementt o t he P enns y l vani a B ar . T he appl i cat i on w as s ubs equent l yr et u rne d forbei ng i ncompl et e and de fec t i ve.10 A ccor di ng t o t he O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i nary C ouns el , Sur r i ck ref u sed to p aythe c o sts of h is un d erly ing d isc ip lin ary p r o c e e d i n g s a n d t o a p p l yf o rt h e r equi s i t e 3 6 h o u r s o f CLE co u r s e s . Su r r i c k d i s p u t e s t h e c o s t s o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and cont ends t hathe does not need t o enr ol l i n C L E cour s es unt i l t he re s o lu tio n o f

th is m a tte r o n a p p e a l.
O n M ay24, 2005, t he O ffi ce of D isci p l i naryC ouns el fi l ed a mot i on s eeki ng r el i ef f r om j udgm ent under R ul e 60( b) of t he Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e or , al t ernat i vel y , a s t ayof the o rde r pe n d ing ap p ea l. O n M ay2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed the mot i on “forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on i n l i ghtof the appea l

. ” The D i s t ri ctC our tal s o s t at ed thateven i f i thad j uri sdi ct i on , t he m oti on w ou l d b e den i ed as pr em ature becau se Sur r i ck had notbeen gi ven ade quat e oppor tuni t y to c ur e any defe ct s i n hi s appl i cat i on. II

. A s an i n it ial m att er , the O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el ar gues t hatSur r i ck has fai l ed t o compl yw i t h t he condi t i ons im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r a n d th a t h is n o n c o m p lian c e re n d e rs th is a p p e a l m o o t. S p e c if ica lly , it cont ends t hat al t hough t he per i od of S urr i ck’ s s us pens i on fr om t he Pennsy l vani a B arexpi r ed on M ar ch 24, 2005, and he w as e lig ib le to re a p p lye ig h t m o n th s in a d v a n c e o f th a t d a te, t o w it, Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , S u rric k h a s f a iled to c o m p lyin g o o d f a ith w ith t he cr i t i cal r equi r ementt hathe “c om m ence a n appl i cat i on for re in sta tem e n t to th e B a r of th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f P e n n sy lv a n ia b y[M ay1 5 , 2 0 0 5 ]. ” A cc o rdin g to th e O f f ic e o f D isci p li n ary C o uns el , Sur r i ck has y ett o paythe cos t s of the di s ci pl i nary11 p r o c e e d i n g s a n d h a s f a i l e d t o e n r o l l i n t h e r e q u i r e d CLE cour s es . T he O ffi ce o f D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el cont ends that Sur r i ck’ s excus e – thatt he am ount of cost s i s i n di s put e and that he i s aw ai t i ng t he out come on appea l – i s not val i d and thathe s houl d h a v e c o n t e s t e d th e a mou n to f c o s t s b e f

o r e the P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt

. T he s t ar t i ng poi ntforourm oot ness anal y s i s i s t he f a m ili ar pr op osi t i on t hat “‘ fede ral cou rt s ar e w i t ho ut pow er t o deci de ques t i ons t hatcannot aff ectthe r i ght s of l i t i gant s i n t he cas e bef or e t h em . ’” D eFun is v. O deg aa rd , 416 U

. S. 312, 316 ( 1974) ( quot i ng N

or th C ar ol i na v. R i ce , 404 U

. S. 244, 246 ( 1971) )

. A r t i cl e I I I r equi r es t hat an actual , l i ve contr over s y“be ext antatal l s t ages of r evi ew , notm er el yatt he t i m e the compl ai nti s fi l ed. ” St ef

f el v. Thom ps on , 415 U

. S. 452, 459 n. 10 (1 9 7 4 ); s e e a lso D e Fu n is , 416 U

. S. at316 ( “The i nabi l i t yof the fede r al j udi ci aryt o r evi ew m ootcas es deri ves fr om t he r equi r ementof A r t. III of the C ons t i tut i on underw hi ch the exerci se of j ud i ci al po w er depen ds up on t he ex i st ence o f a case o r c o n tro v e rsy. ” ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d )

. “ A c e n tra l q u e stio n in det erm i ni ng m oot nes s i s w hethera cha nge i n ci rcum s t ance s s i nce the begi nni ng of t he l i t i gat i on pr ecl udes anyocca s i on for m eani ngful r el i ef. ” O ld B r i dge O w ners C o- op. C or p. v. Tw p. of O ld B r i dge , 2 4 6 F .3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); see al so 1 3 A C. W r i ght , etal

. , Feder al P rac t i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 3533, at261 ( 1984)

. T he “bur den of dem ons t r at i ng m oot nes s ‘ i s a hea vy one. ’ ” C o u n ty o

f L o s A n g e les v . D a v is , 440 U

. S. 625, 631 ( 1979) ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

. T. G r antC o. , 345 U

. S. 629, 633 (1 9 5 3 ))

. A s di s cus s ed i n m or e det ai l i n Par t V I , w e agr ee w i t h t he12 O f f ice o f D isc ip lin a ry C o u n se l th a t S u rric k h a s n o t c o m p lied in g o o d f a i t h wi t h t h e Di s t r i c t Co u r t ’ s o r d e r . No n e t h e l e s s , we concl ude thatthis c ase i s notm ootatthi s s t age. W hat det erm i nes m oot nes s her e i s w hether t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der i s s t i l l i n eff

ectand w h ethe r S urr i ck i s s t i l l m ai nt ai ni ng a l aw o ff ice w ith o u t h av ing b ee n reinstated b y the P en n sy lvan ia B ar. B o th o f th e se c o n d iti o n s ar e m e t. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r is now befor e thi s C our t , and w e have j ur i s di ct ion to de ci de not o n lyth e leg a l is su e s p re se n ted in th e b rie f s, b u t th e a p p ro p ria te cou rs e s of

a c t i on fo rt he pa r t i e s . A l t ho ug h we do no texcu se S u r ric k ’s d ilato ryc o n d u c t, i t is n o t su f f icie n tlye g re g io u s to m er i tvoi di ng t he D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s car eful l y cr aft ed j udgm entat t hi s s t age . R ather , t o i ns ur e t ot al compl i ance w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s o rd e r, w e w ill re q u ire th a t S u rric k p a yth e d isp u ted c o sts and enr ol l i n t he r equi r ed C L E cours es w i t hi n 10 day s of the dat e of thi s j udgm ent

. I n l i ght of t hi s r es ol ut i on, w e ar e s at i s fi ed tha tt he part i es s t i l l have a concr et e i nt er es ti n the out come of th is c a s e . See El l is v. B r other hood of Ry. , A irl i ne and S. S. C l erks , 466 U

. S. 435, 442 ( 1984) ( “[A ] s l ong as t he par t i es have a conc r et e i nt er es t , how evers m al l, i n the out come of t he litig a tio n , th e c a s e is n o t m o o t.” ).
II I.
T he O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el nextcont ends that Sur r i ck’ s compl ai ntfai l ed t o as s erta j us t i ci abl e ca s e or contr over s y as r equi r ed by A r t i cl e I I I of t he U nit ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and the Feder al D ecl ar at oryJ udgm entA ct , 28 U

. S. C

. § 2201. S p ec ifi ca l l y , i tar gues thatthi s cas e i s notr i pe foradj udi cat i on beca us e the O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i nary C ouns el has n evert hr eat ened Surr i ck w i t h di s ci pl i ne. T he D i s t r i ctC ourt13 di s agr eed, concl udi ng that“the thr eatof po tenti al cont empt s anct i ons agai ns t[Sur r i ck] i s cl ear gi ven anyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the Mar cone deci s i on” and thatSur r i ck has pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence “thatthe thr eatof cont empt s anct i ons has caus ed hi m t o fo reg o h is i nt ended pl ans t o open a l aw offi ce w i t hi n t he C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a. ” O urr evi ew of the D i s t r i c tC o u r t ’ s r i p e n e s s a n a l ys i s i s p l e n a r y. Tayl orI nv. Ltd. v. U pperD ar by Tw

p. , 9 8 3 F

. 2 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 8 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ).
R ip e n e ss p re v e n ts co u rts fr o m “ e n tan g lin g th e m se lv e s in abs t r act d isagr eement s . ” A bbot tLabs. v. G ar dner , 38 7 U. S. 136, 14 8 (1967). U l t i m at el y , a ca s e musti nvol ve “a r eal and s ubs t ant ial contr over s yadmi t t i ng of s peci fi c r el i ef thr ough a decr ee of

a conc l us i ve cha r act er , as di s t i ngui s hed fr om an opinion advi s i ng w hatt he l aw w oul d be upon a hypot het i cal s t at e of fa cts. ” R i ce , 4 0 4 U

. S

. at 24 6 (qu o tat ion o m itted). In det erm i ni ng w hethera ca s e i s r i pe, w e gene r al l yexami ne: “( 1)

‘ t he fi t nes s of t h e i s s ues forj udi ci al deci s i on, ’ and ( 2) ‘ t he h ard sh ip o f th e p arti es o f w ith h o lding co u rtco n s id era ti o n . ’” Khodar a E nv’ t

, I nc. v. B l akey , 376 F. 3d 187, 196 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng A bb ott

L ab s. , 3 8 7 U .S . a t 1 4 9 ). I n S tep -Sa v e r D a ta Sys t em s , I

nc. v. W ys e Technology, 9 1 2 F

. 2 d 6 4 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ), how eve r , we e s t a b l i s h e d a mor e r e f i n e d t e s tt o d e t e r mi ne w h etherw e w i l l engage i n pr e- enfor cementr evi ew i n the cont e xt of a de c l a r a t ory j ud gmen t a c t i on : ( 1) t he pa r t i e s m ust h a v e a d v e r se leg a l in ter e sts ; (2 ) th e f a c ts m u st b e su f

f icie n tly conc rete t o al l ow fora conc l us i ve l egal j udgm ent , and ( 3) t he ju d g m e n t m u s t b e u s e f

u l to th e p a rt ie s . I

d. at64 7. W i t h these t hr ee f act or s i n m i nd, w e turn t o ouranal y s i s o f w h et hert he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n concl udi ng t hatthi s cas e i s ri p e for adj udi cat i on.Speci fi cal l y , t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed the 2 ar gum ent t hat “r el evant fede r al s t atut es and rul es es t abl i s h that t he r egul at i on of fe der al pr act i ce i s w i t hi n the author it y o f t he fede r al cour t s and the r i ghtt o pr act i ce ‘ l ogi cal l y ’ inclu d es t he m ai nt enanc e of a l aw o ff ice fo rthatpr act i ce. ” Id

. a t 6 6 3 -6 6 6

. 14 A

. In a ss e ss in g th e a d v e rsityo f th e p a r ties ’ in ter e st, c o u rts l ook t o “[w ] hether t he cl ai m i nvol ves uncert ai n and cont i ngent event s , orpr es ent s a r eal and s ubs t ant i al t hr eatof harm . ” NE H ub P ar tners , L. P

. v. C

N G Trans m is s i on C or

p. , 239 F. 3d 333, 342 n. 9 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. I ti s not nece s s aryfort he part ys eeki ng revi ew t o h ave suf

fered a com plet ed h arm i n o rdert o est abli sh adver s i t yof i nt er es t s o l ong as t her e i s a s ubs t ant i al t hr eatof r eal harm t hatr emai ns t hr oughoutt he cour s e of the l i t i gat i on. P resbyt ery , 40 F. 3d at1463.
T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as co rrect i n det erm i ni ng t hatt he adver s i t yof i nt er es tpr ong i s s at i s fi ed her e. I n M ar cone , t he s t at ed i s s ue w as “w hether an att orneyw ho has been s us pended fro m th e p rac ti ce o f law b ythe P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt m aynevert hel es s m ai nt ai n a l aw offi ce i n the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a for purpos es of pr act i ci ng befor e the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D ist ri ctof Penns y l vani a. ” 855 A

. 2d at 656. A ns w er i ng t hi s ques t i on i n t he negat i ve, the Supr eme C our t of Penns y l vani a concl uded t hat m ai nt ai ni ng an offi ce w oul d cons t i tut e “e ngag[i ng] i n . . . l aw - r el at ed ac t i vi t i es i n t he C om m onw eal t h” i n v i ol at i on of R ul e 217( j ) of the Penns y l vani a R ul es of D i s ci pl i naryE nfor ce m ent , and r ej ect ed the a rgu m en t th at an yfe d era l l aw p ree m p ts R u le 21 7 (j ). 2T he courtdet erm ined tha tpr event i ng an att orneyfr om e sta b lish in g a n o f

f ice f o r th e p u rp o se o f

e n g a g in g in re p re se n tatio n b e f

o re a f e d e ra l co u rt d o e s n o t “s ig n if ic a n tly frus t r at e” t he excl us i ve aut hor i ty of a fede r al cour tt o det erm i ne w h o m a yp ra c tic e la w b e f o re it. Id

. a t 6 6 5

. T h e O f f ice o f D isc ip lin a ryC o u n se l sim u ltan e o u sly 3 cont ends t hatt her e i s no confl i ctbetw een M ar cone a n d t he D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r a n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in r ej ect i ng Mar cone ’ s pr eempt i on anal y s i s . I n addi t i on t o bei ng c o n tra d icto ry , th e O f

f ice o f D isc ip lin a ryC o u n se l m isre a d s b o th 15 A l t hough, as w it h anycas e, the hol di ng of M ar cone is nece s s ar i l yl i m i t ed t o the spec i fi c fact s and ar gum ent s pr es ent ed there, w e agree w i t h the D i stri ct C ou rt t hat S urr i ck faces a s ubs t ant i al t hr eatof s anct i ons underany r eas onabl e r eadi ng of Ma r c o ne . L i ke the att orneyi n M ar cone , Sur r i ck i s a l aw y er s us pended f

r om t he Penns y l vani a B arw ho des i r es t o open a l egal offi ce f

ort he s ol e purpo se o f suppor t i ng hi s pr act i ce befor e the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. I n t he w or ds of the D i s t r i ctC our t , “[Surr i ck] fi t s the pr es cr i pt i on. ” M or eover , the D ist r i ctC our tm ade a fac tual det erm i nat i on t hatSur r i ck’ s fea r o f s anct i ons has actual l ydet err ed hi m fr om openi ng an off i ce, a n d we pe r c e i v e n o r e a s o n t o d i s tu rb th i s f i n d i n g . F i n a l l y , we fi nd i t s i gni fi cantt hatthe O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el has re p e a ted lyre f

u s e d to a ss u re e ith e r th e D istric t C o u rt o r th is C our tt hat S u rri ck w i l l notbe s ubj ectt o the s ame penal t i es as t he att orneyi n Mar cone s houl d he open a l aw offi ce w i t hi n t he C o m m o n w e a lth f

o r th e p u rpo se o f re p rese n ti n g cli en ts be fo re t he E as t ern D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a. See P resbyt ery , 40 F. 3d 3t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derand M ar cone . Al t h o u g h th e Di s t r i ct C our tdi d i t s bes tt o fas h i on an or dert hatw oul d addr es s t he C o m m o n w e a lth ’s c o n c e rn s, m a n y o f w h ich w e re e x p re ss e d in Mar cone , i ts d e c isio n is n e v e rth e les s in c lea r c o n f lict w ith Mar cone . T h e o n lysig n if ica n t f a c tu a l d if

f e re n c e b e tw e e n th is c a s e and Ma r cone i s t hatthe att orneyi n M ar cone had a s i gn out s i de hi s offi ce thats ai d, “Frank J

. M ar cone, A t t orneyat L aw , ” w i t houtanyqual i fi cat i on. T her e w as t her efor e a gr eat er r i s k of publ i c conf

us i on i n M

ar cone . T h is, h o w e v e r, w a s c lea rly nott he ra tio d e c id e n d i of the court ’ s hol di ng. 16 a t 1 4 5 8 (f

in d in g sig n if

ica n t th a t th e sta te “ e x p re ss lyre f u se d to o ff er a n yassu ran ce s” th at i t w o u ld n o t pro sec u te plaintiff).
A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e th re a t o f sa n c tio n s is su ffi ci ent l yr eal and s ubs t ant i al t o s at i s fythe fi r s tpr ong of the St ep- Saver i nqui r y . A s the Supr eme C our thas r epea t edl ys t at ed,

“‘ [one] does nothave t o aw ai t the cons um m at i on of thr eat ened in ju ryto o b tain p r e v e n tativ e re lief. If th e in ju ryis c e rta in ly i m pendi ng, t hati s enough. ’ ” B ab bit tv. U nited Fa rm W

orkers N at ’ lU ni on , 442 U

. S. 289, 298 ( 1979) ( quot i ng P e n n sy lva n ia v . W e st V irg in ia , 2 6 2 U

. S

. 5 5 3 , 5 9 3 (19 2 3 )).

B

. T he s econd Step- Sa ver fac t orr equi r es us t o cons i derthe fitn ess o f th e i ssu e fo r ad jud icati o n to ens u re th at th e d ec laratory j udgm entw oul d in fa ctdet erm i ne the part i es ’ r i ght s , as di s t i ngui s hed fr om an advi s ory opi ni on bas ed on a hypot het i cal s e t o f f a c ts

. P resbyt ery , 40 F. 3d at 1468. C as es p resent i ng17 pred o m i nant l yl egal ques t i ons ar e part i cul ar l y“amenabl e t o a concl us i ve det erm i nat ion i n a pr eenf or cementcont ext , ” and g e n e ra lly re q u ir e le s s f

a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n t. Id

. A s the D i s t r i ct C ou r to b s e r v e d , we h a v e p r e v i o u s l yf o u n d f e d e r a l p r e e mpt i on t o b e predo m i nan t l yl egal for purposes of the con cl usi ven ess pr ong of the St ep- Savera n a lysis

. See A r m s tr o n gW o r ldIn d u s ., I n c
. b y W o l f s o n v
. A da ms , 9 6 1 F. 2d 405, 421 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( “[W ] her e the ques t i on pr es ent ed i s ‘ pr edomi nant l yl egal , ’ s uch as one of f

eder al pr eempt i on, t he need for f actual devel opm ent is no t as g rea t. ”); see al so N E H ub P artners , 239 F. 3d at 344 (“ [ A ] d e ter m in a tio n o f

w h e th e r th e re is p re e m p tio n p rim a rily r ai s es a legal i s s ue, a ci r cumst ance w hi ch fa ci l i t at es entr yof decl ar at or yj udgm ent. ”). N onethel es s , a pl ai nt i ff r ai s i ng a pr edomi nant l yl egal cl ai m m us ts ti ll m eett he mi ni m um re q u ir e m e n ts f

o r A rt ic le II I j u ri s d ic tio n . A r m s tr ong , 961 F. 2d at 4 2 1

. H ere, w e percei ve n o reason w hy dis po si t i on of thi s case coul d not concl us i vel y det erm i ne t he l egal i s s ues i n di s put e. S u rri ck ’s so le l eg al co n tention is th at th e O ff ice o f D isci p li n ary C o u n se l’s p o licy a n d p ra c tice o f d isc ip lin in g a tto rn e y s c o n f licts w ith th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s e x c lu siv e a u th o rity t o r egul at e i t s ow n att orneyadmi s s i ons i n vi ol at i on of the S u p re m a c yC la u s e o f th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . See U

. S. C ons t

. A r t

. V I , cl

. 2. T he ques t i on pr es ent ed i s ther efor e one of f e d e ra l p re e m p tio n , w h ic h is p re d o m in a n tly le g a l. See A r m s tr ong , 961 F. 2d at421.
A s t o t he fac tual r ecor d, Sur r i ck t es t i fi ed as to the s p ec ifi c par amet er s he w oul d fol l ow w er e he t o open a l aw offi ce. H e as s ur ed the D i s t r i ctC our t t hat he w oul d not pl ace a18 sign o r o ther ad v erti sem en t o u tsi d e his o ff ice, that an ystat ion ary w o u ld sp e c if

ica lly in d ica te th a t h e is on ly lice n se d to p ra c tice in t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, and that h e w oul d not p r o v i d e a n yl e g a l a dvi ce on s t at e l aw m at t er s . M or eover , the D i s t r i c tC o u r tm a d e t h e s e a s s u r a n c e s c o n d i t i o n s o f i t s o r d e r . We fai l t o s ee how anyfur t herfac tual devel opm ent , s hor tof w ai t i ng fo r S u rri ck to o p en an o ff ice a n d th e O ff

ice o f D isci p li n ary C ouns el t o t hen t ake a ct i on, coul d ai d o u r r es ol ut i on of the pr eempt i on ques t i on. W e ther efor e conc l ude th at t he s econd Step- Sa ver pr ong i s s at i s fi ed.
C

. T h e f in a l St e p- Saver p r ong r equi r es us t o cons i der w hethera decl ar at or y j udgm entw i l l aff ectt he part i es ’ pl ans of a c tio n s b y a lle v ia tin g le g a l u n c e rt a in ty. St ep- Saver , 912 F. 2d at 6 4 9 n .9 ; see al

so N E H ub P artners , 2 3 9 F .3 d a t 3 4 2 n .9 . T h is pr ong i s undoubt edl ys at i s fi ed h er e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound t hatfea r o f s anct i ons has eff ect i vel ydet err ed Sur r i ck fr om o p e n in g a law o f

f ice . A d e c lar a tio n o f

rig h ts w o u ld p e rm it Sur r i ck t o open a l aw offi ce w i t hi n t he C om m onw eal t h w i t hout fea rof governm ent al s anct i on s, and al s o i nform hi m of any g u id e lin e s h e m u s t f

o llo w in o p e ra tin g h is p ra c tic e . A gr antor deni al of r el i ef w oul d t her efor e mat er i al l yaff ectthe part i es and se rv e th e p u rp o s e o f th e D e c lar a to ryJu d g m e n t A c t – “cl ar i fy [i ng] l egal r el at i ons hi ps s o t hatpl ai nt i ffs

. . . [ca n] m ake r e s p o n s i b l e d e c i s i o n s a b o u tt h e f u tur e. ” See Step- Saver , 912 F .2 d a t 6 4 9

. D.19 A l l t hr ee Step- Sa ver fac t or s have be en meti n thi s cas e. Sur r i ck fa ces a r eal and s ubs t ant i al t hr eatof s anct i ons i n l i ghtof Ma r cone , further factual developm ent w ou l d n ot be hel pfu l in r es ol vi ng t he pr edomi nant l y l egal ques t i on pr es ent ed her e, and a dec l ar at or yj udgm entw i l l m at er i al l yaff ectthe ac t i ons of the part i es. W e t herefore agree w i t h t he D i stri ctC ou rtt hat this case i s r i pe fo r adj ud i cat i on . W e turn no w t o the m eri t s. I V.
A l t hough fede r al cour t s have tr adi t i on al l yus ed admi ssion to the barof a s t at e courtas a s t andar d fori ni t i al admi s s i on t o t hei rbar s , adm issi o n t o pr act i ce l aw befor e a sta te’ s c o u rts a n d a d m iss io n to p ra c tice b e f o re th e f e d e ra l co u rts in th a t s ta te a re s e p a ra te , in d e p e n d e n t p ri v ile g e s . See Thear d v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 5 4 U

. S. 278, 281 ( 1957) ( “The t w o j udi ci al s ys t e m s o f

c o u r t s , t h e s t a t e j u d i c a tu r e s a n d t h e f e d e r a l j u d i c i a r y, hav e autono m ou s co n tro l ov er the co nd uct of theiroff i cers , a m o n g w h o m . . . law y e rs a re in c lu d e d .”). C o n sis ten t w ith th is s et t l ed pr opos i t i on, the U ni t ed S ta t es Supr eme C our t“has r epea t edl yemphasi zed .

. . t hatdi s qual ifi cat i on fr om m e m b e rsh ip f

ro m a sta te b a r d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rilylea d to di s qual i fi cat i on fr om a fe der al bar

. ” Fr az i erv. Heebe , 48 2 U. S. 6 4 1 , 6 4 7 n .7 (1 9 8 7 ); see Th eard , 354 U

. S. at282 ( “[D ] i s barm ent byfede r al cour t s does not aut om at i cal l y fl ow fr om di s barm ent f ro m sta te c o u rts.” ); Sell i ngv. R ad f ord , 2 4 3 U

. S

. 4 6 , 4 9 (19 1 7 ).
A lth o u g h th e f

e d e ral cou rts a re e m p o w e re d w ith a b so lu te a u th o rityto g ra n t p riv ileg e s a n d im p o se re stric tio n s o n th e ir m embe rs , t he di ct at es of comi t ym us tneverbe i gnor ed. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a c k n o wl e d g e t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me20 C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n in M ar cone an d the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s c o m p e lli n g in ter e st in re g u latin g th e p ra c tice o f law w ith in its bor der s . N onethel es s , w e bel i eve thatunderthe uni que ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed her e – the Pen n sy lva ni a per i od of su sp e n sio n w a s c o m in g to a c lo se a n d S u rric k w a s p e rm itt e d to m ai nt ai n an off

i ce for an extr emel y l i m i t ed per i od – the s ol ut i on arr i ved atbyt he D i s t r i ctC our t , al t hough bot t om ed on a f eder al cour t ’ s undeni abl e ri ght t o i m pos e pri vi l eges and r es t r i ct i ons on it s m em b ers, is n o t u n d u ly o ff en sive to a sist e r so v ere ign ’s abs ol ut e pr ohi bi t i on of m ai nt ai ni ng an off i ce unde rt he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s i n Mar cone . T h e q u e stio n in th is c a se is w h e th e r a sta te m a yp ro h ib it an att o rne yadmi t t ed t o the barof a f eder al di s t r i ctcourt , but s us pended f

r om t he s t at e bar , fr om m ai nt ai ni ng a l egal offi ce f or t he s ol e purpos e of s uppor t i ng a pr act i ce bef or e the fe der al cour t

. T he s t ar t i ng poi nt for our anal y s i s i s t he s emi nal cas e of Sper r y v. Stat e of

F l or i da , i n wh i c h t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our t hel d t hat t he St at e of Fl or i da coul d not enjoin a loca l pat entpr act i t i oner , w ho w as notadmi t t ed t o the St at e B ar of Fl or i da, fr om pr epar i ng pat entappl i cat i ons and o ther l egal i ns t rum ent s t hat ar e fi l ed s ol el y i n t he U ni t ed St at es Pat entand Tr a d e ma r k Of

f i c e . 3 7 3 U. S

. 3 7 9 , 3 8 5 ( 1 9 6 3 )

. Th e S u p r e me C our tbegan i t s anal y s i s byr ecogni zi ng t hatt h e stat e had a su b sta n tial in ter e st in re g u latin g th e p ra c tice o f law w ith in its b o rd e rs a n d th a t, i n th e a b se n c e o f f e d e ra l leg is la tio n , itc o u ld val i dl ypr ohi bi tnon- l aw y er s fr om prep aring a nd fi l i ng pat ent a p p lic a tio n s . Id

. at 383. U ndert he Supr emacyC l aus e, ho w ever, “‘the law of t he S t at e, t ho ug h en act ed in the ex erci se o f p o w e rs u n c o n tro v e rte d , m u st y ield ’ w h e n in c o m p a tib le w ith f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n. ” Id

. at384 ( quot i ng G i bbons v. O gden , 2221 U .S . (9 W h e a t) 1 (1 8 2 4 )). T h e C o u rt re a so n e d th a t if th e sta te w e re p e rm itt e d to e n f

o rc e lice n sin g re q u ire m e n ts c o n tra ryto fede r al l aw , t he s t at e w oul d t hen have t he pow erof r evi ew over fede ral l i censi ng requi rem ents : [ a ] S tate m a y n o t e n f

o rc e lice n sin g re q u ire m e n ts w hi ch, t hough val i d i n the abs ence of fe der al r egul at i on, gi ve “the St at e’ s l i ce n s i ng boar d a vi r tual pow erof r evi ew over the fede r al d e ter m in a tio n ” th a t a p e rso n o r a g e n c yis q u a lifie d a n d e n tit led to p e rf o rm c e rta in funct i ons , or w hi ch i m pos e upon t he per form ance of ac t i vi t ys anct i oned b yf e d e r a l l i cens e addi t i onal c o n d i t i o n s n o tc o n t e mp l a t e d b yCo n g r e s s . “ No St at e l aw can hi nderorobs t ructthe fr ee us e of a l i cens e gr ant ed underan ac tof C ongr es s . ”
I d. a t 3 8 5 (c ita tio n s a n d f o o tn o te s o m itte d ). Sp erry ther efor e s t ands fort he gene r al pr opos i t i on t hat w her e fe der al l aw au tho r i zes an age ntt o pr act i ce be for e a fede r al t r i bunal , t he fe der al l aw pr eempt s a st at e’ s l i cens i ng r equi r ement s t o t he ext entt hatt hos e requi r ement s hi nderor o b s tru c t th e g o a ls o f

f e d e ra l la w . I

d. ; s ee a lso In re D e sile ts , 2 9 1 F

. 3 d 9 2 5 , 9 3 0 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ Wh e n s t a t e l i c e n s i n g l a ws purpor tt o pr ohi bi tl aw y er s from d oi ng t hatw hi ch fe der al l aw e n title s th e m to d o , th e s ta te la w m u s t g iv e w a y .” ).
T h e O f f ice o f D isc ip lin a ryC o u n se l co n ten d s th a t Sp erry i s di s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

o rt wo r e a s o n s . Fi r s t , t h e e n a b l i ng congr es s i onal s tat u te i n Sp erry expr es s l yal l ow ed fort he22 pr os ecut i on o f p at ent s bynon- l aw y er s , w her eas her e no C ongr es s i onal s t atut e expr es s l yperm i t s Sur r i ck t o m ai nt ai n a law o f f ice . S e c o n d , tha t b e c a u se S u rric k in ten d s to lit ig a te fede r al di ver s i t yact i ons , he i s foral l pr act i cal m att er s pr act i ci ng s ta te la w . C

f

. Mar cone , 855 A

. 2d at 6 5 4 (“S ta t e l aw conce r ns a re th e f o u n d a tio n o f

f e d e r a l d iv e rsitya c tio n s. . . . T h u s, to su g g e st th a t b e c a u s e m a in ten a n c e o f a n o f f ice is lim ited to f e d e ra l p ra c tice , it d o e s n o t c o n stitu te th e p ra c tice o f law w ith in t he bor der s of a s t at e, i s t o i gnor e the r eal it ies o f curr entl egal pract i ce. ”). W e rej ectthese argum ents

. A.
U ndert he Supr emacyC l aus e, w hen s t at e l aw confl i ct s or i s i ncompat i bl e w i t h fede r al l aw , t he feder al l aw pr eempt s t he stat e law

. P ree m p ti o n g en era ll yo cc u rs i n three w ay s: ( 1 ) w h ere C on gress has exp res sl ypreem pted st at e l aw ; ( 2) w he r e Cong res s has l egi s l at ed so com pr ehens i vel y t hat fede r al l aw occupi es an ent i r e fi el d of r egul at i on and l eave s no r oom fors t at e l aw ; or( 3) w h e re f e d e ra l la w c o n f

lic ts w ith s ta te la w . See Barne t tB ank of Mar i on C ount

y v. N el s on , 51 7 U

. S

. 25 , 3 1 (1 9 9 6 ). T his case i ndi s put abl yi nvol ves “conf l i ctpr eempt i on, ” w hi ch ar i s es w hen “s t at e l aw s t ands as an o b sta cl e t o the ac compl i s hm entand exec ut i on of the ful l purpos es and obj ect i ves of C ongr es s . ” F i d. Fe d . Sa v . & L o a n A ss ’n v . de la C u e sta , 458 U

. S. 141, 152, 153 (1 9 8 2 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ).
A s di s cus s ed above , i t i s w el l es t abl i s hed that“a f eder al c o u rt h a s th e p o w e r to c o n tro l ad m is sio n to its b a r a n d to d i s c i p l i n e a t t o r n e ys w h o a p p e a rb e f o re it.” Ch a m b e r

s v
. NA S CO , I nc. , 5 0 1 U .S

. 3 2 , 4 3 (1 9 9 1 ); In re P o o le , 2 2 2 F .3 d 6 1 8 , 6 2 0 (9 th C i r . 2000) ( “[A ] s near l y a century of Supr eme C our tpr ece dent m akes cl ear , pr act i ce be for e fe der al cour t s i s n o t g o v erned by s ta te c o u rt ru le s .” ). T h is p o w e r is ro o te d in b o th s ta tu te , s ee 28 U .S .C . § 2 0 7 1 (a ) (“ T h e S u p re m e C o u rt a n d a ll co u rtsR u le 8 3 .6 V II(I) o f th e E a ste rn D ist r ic t R u les o f C iv il 4 P rocedu re s t at es: A n y at t or neyw ho i s r ei ns t at ed maypr act i ce befor e thi s cour tnotw i t hs t andi ng the r efus al or fai l ur e of any s t at e cour t t o r ei ns t at e s ai d at t orney to pr act i ce. H ow ever , r ei ns t at ementt o pr act i ce b e f o re th is co u rt d o e s n o t a u th o riz e a n a tto rn e yto pr act i ce i n anyot her j ur i s di ct i on, and no at t orney sh a ll h o ld h im se lf

o r h e rse lf

a s a u th o riz e d to pr act i ce l aw i n anyj ur i s di ct i on i n w hi ch the at t or neyi s notadmi t t ed.
L o ca l R u le 83

. 6 V II( I) ( 2 0 0 5 ). 23 es t abl i s hed by A ctof C ongr es s m ayfr om t i m e t o t i m e pr es cr i be rules f o r th e c o n d u ct of

their bu sine ss.”); 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 5 4 (“In al l cour t s of t he U ni t ed St at es t he part i es m aypl ead a nd conduct t hei row n cas es per s onal l yorbycouns el , as , by t he rul es of s uch cour t s , r es pect i vel y , ar e perm i t t ed t o m anage a n dc o n d u c tcaus es ther ei n. ”) ; R ul e 83, Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, and the in h e re n t a u th o ri ty o f

th e f e d e ra l c o u rt s , C ha m bers, 501 U

. S. at 43 ( us i ng fede r al court s ’ contr ol over admi s s i on t o t hei rbar s as an exa m pl e of an inher entpow er“governed notbyrul e or s t atut e butbyt he contr ol nece s s ar i l y ves t ed i n cour t s t o m anage t hei row n aff

ai r s s o as t o achi eve the or der l yand expe di t i ous di s pos i t i on of ca s es ”) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on om i t t ed)

. Pur s uant to its e x c lu s iv e a u th o ri ty o v e r m e m b e rs o f its b a r, P o o le , 222 F. 3d at621, t he East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a pr om ul gat ed R u le 8 3 .6 V I I (I) o f

th e E a ste rn D istric t R u les o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e , wh i c h e x p r e s s l y p e r mi t s a t t o r n e y s s u s p e n d e d f r o m a s t at e bart o pr act i ce be for e t he E as t ern D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a. 4 Itis th ere fo re b ey o n d d ispu te – a n d the O ff ice o f D isci p li n ary C o u n se l d o e s n o t q u e stio n th is po in t

– th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth lack s the au tho ri tyto p roh ibitS u rri ck fro m pr act ici n g law b ef o re24 th e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia

. S e e I

n re D e sile ts , 291 F. 3d at 929 ( obs ervi ng t hat al t hough t he ena bl i ng C ongr es s i onal s t atut e i n Sp erry e x p re s slya u th o riz e d f e d e ra l au th o rities to det erm i ne w ho m aypr act i ce l aw and 28 U

. S. C

. §§ 1654 & 2071 d o n o t, th is is a “ d istin c tio n w ith o u t a d if f e re n c e ” ); c

f. U ni t ed Stat es v. H

vass , 355 U

. S. 570, 575 ( 1958) (ho ldi ng t hatrul es and reg u l at i ons pr om ul gat ed bya di s t r i ctcour tt hathave be en l aw ful l yauthor i zed a nd have a cl ear l egi s l at i ve base qual i fyas “a law o f the U n it ed S tat es,” a s tha t ph rase is use d in a p erjury statu te).
T he more dif

fi cul tques t i on i s w hethera s t at e l aw pr ohi bi t i ng Sur r i ck fr om m ai nt ai ni ng a l aw offi ce i s pr eempt ed by thi s excl us i ve author i t yof the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a t o det erm i ne w ho m aypr act i ce l aw befor e i t

. T he O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el ar gues t hatconfl i ctpr eempt i on does not appl y her e beca us e, unl i ke i n Sp erry , w her e the fe der al s t atut e s peci fi cal ly au t hor i zed non- l aw y er s t o pr epar e and p ro se c u te p a ten ts, th e re is n o f e d e ra l sta tu te o r lo c a l ru le expr es s l ys et t i ng for t h t he r i ghtof fe der al court s t o det erm i ne w h o m a ym a in ta in a n o f f ic e in a s ta te

. T h is a rgum enti s bas ed on both a mi s r eadi ng of Sp erry and a mi s appr ehens i on of t he pr eempt i on doctr i ne. Feder al l aw pr eempt s notonl ys t at e l aw s t hat expr es s l y pr ohi bi t t he veryact t he fe der al l aw al l ow s , but t hos e t hat“s t and as an obs t acl e t o t he acc om pl i s hm entof the ful l purpos es and obj ect i ves ” of f eder al la w . Si lkw ood v. Ker r - McG ee Corp. , 4 6 4 U

. S

. 2 3 8 , 2 4 8 (19 8 4 ). T h u s, f e d e ra l an d sta te la w n e e d n o t b e c o n tra d icto ryo n th e ir fac es forpr eempt i on t o appl y . I ti s s uffi ci ent t hat t he s t at e l aw “i m pos e[s ]

. . . addit ion al condi t i ons ” notcont empl at ed by C o n g re s s . Sp erry , 373 U

. S. at385.
I n Sp erry , forexampl e, the St at e B arof Fl or i da ar gued t hat t he feder al l i cens e t o pr act i ce be for e the Pat entO ffi ce w as25 a narr ow one, onl yconfe r r i ng t he r i ghtt o pr acti ce i n t he phy s i cal pr es ence of t he Pat ent and T r ademar k O ffi ce an d t he D is tr ic t o f

C o lu m b ia

. I

d. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt re jec ted th is cont ent i on, s t at i ng t hat Sper r y had t o be perm i t t ed t o “per form [] t a s k s i n c i d e n tt o t h e p r e p a r a t i o n a n d p r o s e c u t i o n o f p at ent appl i cat i ons . ” Id

. a t 4 0 4 . A lth o u g h th e C o u rt e x p re ss ly decl i ned “t o det erm i ne w hatfunct i ons ar e re as onabl yw i t hi n t he sc o p e o f th e p ra c tice a u th o riz e d ” b yf e d e ra l law , itn o ted th a t a pr act i t i oner “m us tof cour s e r enderopi ni ons as t o t he p a ten tab ili tyo f

th e in v e n tio n s b ro u g h t to h im , an d

. . . itis ent i r el yr ea so n abl e fora pr act i t i onert o hol d hi m s el f outas qual i fi ed t o per form hi s s peci al i zed w or k, s o l ong as he does not m i s r epr es entt he s cope of hi s l i cens e. ” Id

. a t 4 0 2 n .4 7

. T he r eas ons for t he broa d cons t ruct i on of the Supr emacy C l aus e ar e pl ai n. I f pr eempt i on onl yappl i ed t o stat e la w s that d ire c tlyc o n tra d ic t f

e d e r a l l a w s , f

e d e r a l l a w s c o u ld b e e f

f e c ti v e ly nul l i fi ed bys t at e l aw s pr ohi bi t i ng thos e act s t hat ar e i nci dentt o, butnots peci fi cal l yauthor i zed by , fede r al l aw . U nders uch a r e g i me , s t a t e o f

f i c i a l s wo u l d h a v e a “ v i r tu a l p o we ro f r e v i e w” o v e r f e d e r a l la w s . See id

. at 38 5 (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A ccor di ngl y , t he q u est i on her e i s notw hetheranyfede r al l aw expr es s l y confe r s t he ri ght t o m ai nt ai n an offi ce, butw hethert he m ai nt enanc e of a n offi ce i s “r eas onabl yw i thi n t he s cope” of the f e d e ra lly-c o n f

e rr e d lic e n s e to p ra c tic e la w . Id

. a t 4 0 2 n .4 7

. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatm ai nt ai ni ng a l aw offi ce i s “r e a s o n abl yw i t hi n t he s cope of the pr act i ce a uthor i zed” by28 U

. S. C

. §§ 1654 & 2071 an d the loc al rul es and thatt he s t at e’ s r egul at i on of s uch conduc t h inder s Sur r i ck’ s fede r al lice n se to p ra c tice law . W e re c o g n ize th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our t r eac hed a c ontr aryconcl us i on i n M ar cone . See 8 5 5 A

. 2 d at 66 5 (“W h il e re g u lat ion o f th e m ainten an ce [o f] a l aw offi ce t hr ough w hi ch one hol ds hi m s el f out t o t he publ i c and couns el s cl i ent s m aypl ace s om e bur den on one w ho has been26 s us pended f

r om t he pra ct i ce of l aw i n a par t i cul ar s t at e butw ho i s nevert hel es s admi t t ed bef or e a f eder al cour t , ourr egul at i on of t hos e w ho m ai nt ai n a l aw offi ce w i t hi n ourbor der s s i m pl ydoes n o t, w ith o u t m o re , res u lt i n c o n f li c t p re -e m p tio n .”). In a ll candor , w e have extr eme di ffi cul t yi n acc ept i ng the not i on that m ai nt ai ni ng an offi ce cons t i tut es engagi ng i n the pr act i ce of l aw butpr ohi bi t i ng one fr om m ai nt ai ni ng an offi ce doe s notbur den t he r i ghtt o pr act i ce l aw . P erha ps t he expl anat i on l i es i n the di ffe r ence i n t he r ecor d befor e us and t hatw hi ch w as befor e our col l eague s on t he Penns y l vani a S u p rem e C our t

. H er e, t he D i s t r i ct C our t hear d expert t es t i m ony on t he abi l i tyo f an at t or ney t o pr act i ce l aw w i t hout a phy s i cal offi ce a nd concl uded th a t: [d] es pi t e t echnol o gi cal advanc es i n t he pr act i ce of l aw – su ch as el ectr oni c fi l i ng and ca s e r es ear ch t hr ough i nt ernets ubscri pt i ons – phy s i cal s pace r emai ns nece s s aryfort he r epr es ent at i on of cl i ents

. A ph y si ca l off i ce space p rovi des a lo c a tio n f

o r c o n f id e n tial c o u n se lin g w ith c lien ts a s w e ll as ro o m to sto re th e n e c e ss a rye q u ip m e n t, s uch as fax machi nes , l egal t ext , t el ephones , p aper f iles , typ e w riter s a n d c o m p u ter s, a ss o c iatio n w ith proper m anag em ent of l egal m at t ers . W i t h o u t a phy s i cal off

ice l ocat i on t he pl ai nt i ff w oul d be e f f e c t i v e l yp r o h i b i t e d f

r o m “ p e r f

o r mi n g [ t h o s e] task s w h ich are i n cide n t to” l it igating ca ses b ef o re th e E a ste rn D istric t. ( D

. C t

. O p. at21 ( quot i ng Sp erry , 3 7 3 U .S . a t 4 0 4 ).)
W e agr ee w i t h t hes e fi ndi ngs . A s both a pr act i cal and h isto ric a l m a tter, th e m a in ten a n c e o f a law o f f ice is in c id e n t to t he pr act i ce of l aw . A l t hough t her e i s no pr eci s e fo rm u la for det erm i ni ng w hen a s t at e r egul at ion goes t oo fari n bur deni ngT h e O f f ice o f D isc ip lin a ryC o u n se l co n ten d s th a t M ar cone 5 wo u l d n o tp r o h i b i t S u rr i c k f r o m m a i n t a i n i n g a h o me o f f i c e . As an i ni t i al m at t er , w e ar e dubi ous of thi s r eadi ng of M ar cone . If m ai nt ai ni ng a s epar at e l aw office is e ngagi ng i n “l aw - r el at ed act i vi t i es , ” s ee M

ar cone , 855 A

. 2d at662, w e s ee no r eas on w hy m ai ntai ning a ho m e off i ce w ou l d n ot be. M oreove r, w e refuse t o r equi r e t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o di s s ecteac h att orney ’ s per s onal l i vi ng s i tuat i on t o det erm i ne w hetheri tw oul d be fe as i bl e for h i m orh e rt o e s t a b l i s h a h o me o f f i c e . I ti s s u f

f i c i e n tth at m ai nt ai ni ng a s epar at e l aw offi ce i s , as a gener al m att er , i nci dent t o t h e p r a c t i c e o f

l a w. T h e O f f ice o f D is c ip li n a r yC o u n se l im p lies th a t M ar cone 6 r el i ed on thi s ar gum enti n det erm i ni ng t hatfede r al pr eempt i on d o e s n o t a p p l y. (O D C B r. a t 1 6 .) I t d id n o t. M ar cone o n ly di s cus s ed the over l ay of st at e and fede r al l aw i n concl udi ng that 27 f e d e ra l g o a ls , s ee NW C en t. P i pel i ne C or

p. v. Stat e C or

p. C om m ’ n of

Kans as , 489 U

. S. 493, 515-51 9 (1989) ( obs ervi ng th a t so m e b u rd e n o n f e d e ra l g o a ls d o e s n o t re su lt i n pr eempt i on) , t he di r ect eff ect of a s t at e r egul at i on pr ohi bi t i ng an a tto rn e yf

ro m m a in tain in g a law o f f ice is th e f

r u s tra tio n o f

h is o rh e ra b i l i t y t o p r a c t i c e b e f o r e a f e d e r a l c o u r t

. A c c o r d i n g l y,

5 w e re sp e c tf

u llyd isa g re e w ith th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt, and conc l ude thatt he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a’ s pow er to d e ter m in e w h o m a yp ra c tice law b e f o re it p re e m p ts Penns y l vani a l aw barr i ng an unl i cens ed att orneyfr om m ai nt ai ni ng a l aw offi ce. B.
W e r ej ectt he O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el ’ s addi t i onal ar gum entt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti gnor ed “the over l ayof fe der al w ith stat e p ra c tice ” a n d th a t S u rric k ’s in ten tio n to p ra c tice so lely d iv e rs ity c a s e s s h o u ld in f lu e n c e o u r d e c is io n . (O D C B r. a t 1 6 .) 6t he mai nt enanc e of a l egal offi ce f orthe p u rpose of

pr act i ci ng befor e a f eder al cour tco n s t i tut es “l aw - r el at ed ac t i vi t i es ” thatthe C o m m o n w e a lth h a s a n in te re s t in re g u la tin g . See M ar cone , 855 A

. 2 d a t 6 6 1

. W e d o n o t q u e s t i o n t h i s d e t e r mi n a t i o n . A bs ent c o n f lictin g f e d e ra l law , the C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia w oul d be fr ee t o pr ohi bi ts us pended a t t orney s fr om m ai nt ai ni ng off i ces for the p urpose o f pract i ci ng befo re the fe deral cou rt s. See S perry , 373 U

. S. at383 ( “W e do notques ti o n the d eter m i nat i on t hatunderFl or i da l aw t he pr epar at i on and pr os ecut i on of pat entapp li cat i ons forot her s cons t i tut es the pract i ce of

l aw . . . . N or do w e do ub tthat Fl ori da h as a s ubs t ant i al i nt er es ti n r egul at i ng t h e p rac ti ce of l aw w i t hi n the S ta te a n d th a t, i n th e a b se n c e o f f e d e ra l leg isla tio n , itc o u ld val i d l ypr ohi bi tnonl aw y er s fr om engagi ng i n t hi s ci r cumscr i bed fo rm o f p aten t prac ti ce . ”). It g o es w ith o u t say ing that the O f f ic e o f D isci p li n ary 7 C ouns el ’ s pr opos ed di s t i nct i on i s o v erl ys i m pl i s t i c. M any di ver s i t ycas es i nvol ve the l aw of s t at es otherthan the forum sta te, a n d m a n y f

e d e ra l q u e stio n c a se s tu rn o n q u e stio n s o f sta te law

. If w e w ere to ad o p t the O ff ice o f D isci p li n aryC o u n sel’s r eas oni ng, w hetheran att orneyi s admi t t ed t o the barof a f eder al cour tw oul d have t o depend on the fa ct s and l aw of ea ch ca s e. 28 A lth o u g h w e a c k n o w led g e th a t f e d e ra l c a se s, a n d e s p e c ially di ver s i t ycas es , o f

t e n i n v o l v e q u e s t i ons of Penns y l vani a l aw , and t hatt he C om m onw eal t h has a legi t i m at e i nt er es ti n pr event i ng s us pended at t or ney s fr om pr act i ci ng s t at e l aw , pr eempt i on anal y s i s does noti nvol ve a ba l anci ng o f st at e and f eder al i nt er es t s . O nce i t i s det erm i ned t hat t her e i s a conf l i ctbetw een a v a l i d f e d e r a l l a w a n d a s t a t e l a w , t h e s t a t e l a w m u s tg i v e w a y. See S perry , 373 at385. T h e O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el ca n n o t po int t o an yau tho ri ty in d ic a ti n g that a f ed era l cou rt ’s pow ert o det erm i ne w ho m aypr act i ce l aw befor e i tdepends on t h e t yp e o f

c a s e s a l a wy e ri n t e n d s t o p r a c t i c e . Un d e r2 8 U. S

. C. 729 §§ 1654 & 2071 an d the l ocal rul es , t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a has t he author i t y t o det erm i ne w ho m ayp rac ti ce law b ef o re it r e g a rd less o f th e e x tent to w h ich a law y er’s p rac ti c e m igh t i n v o lve q u esti o n s o f state law

. W e the ref o re r ej ectt he ar gum entt hatt he i nt ert w i ni ng of s t at e and f eder al l aw s o me h o w “ p r e c l u d e [ s ] a f i n d i n g o f f e d e r a l p r e e mp t i o n . ” ( ODC B r. a t 1 6 .) V. It is d if f icu lt t o c o n c e iv e o f a m a tter th a t ap p e a rs to j eop ardi ze con cepts of co m i t ym ore than t he case p re se n tly befor e us . I tcoul d be co ns i der ed thatt he hol di ng her e i s on col l i s i on cour s e w i t h t he hi ghes tcour tof a se par at e s over ei gn – an i m por t ants t at e thatcont ai ns thr ee j udi ci al di s t r i ct s i n t he T hi r d C i r cui t– i n a mat t ert hatconce r ns t he C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a no l es s t han the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. B u t th ere are three juri sp rud en ti al co n side ra tio n s p rese n t here th a t d e m o n stra te a f

e licityo f

re sp e c t to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt.
F irs t, w e n o te th a t o u r h o ld in g d o e s n o t o v e rru le Mar cone . O nl y t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme Court has t he pow er to o v erru l e a deci s i on of t he hi ghes t cour t of a s t at e on a q u e s tio n o f

f e d e ra l la w . See R ookerv. F i del i t y Tr us tC o. , 263 U

. S

. 41 3, 41 5-416 (1 9 2 3 ); s ee al s o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1257 ( “Fi nal ju d g m e n ts o r d e c re e s re n d e re d b y th e h ig h e st c o u rt o f a S tate in wh i c h a d e c i s i o n c o u l d b e h a d , ma yb e r e v i e we d b yt h e S u p r e me C o u rt

. . . . ”). Second, deci s i ons of t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme Courtdo n o tb i n d t h i s C o u r t w i t h r e s p e c tt o f e d e r a l l a w , a n d , c o n v e r s e l y, “d ec isi o n s o f the f

ed era l distri ct co u rt s an d co u rt s o f a p p ea l[s], i ncl udi ng t hos e of the Thi r d C i r cui tC our tof A p p eal s , ar e not b in d in g o n P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts, e v e n w h e n a f e d e ra l q u e stio n is in v o lv e d .” C hi r opr act i c N utr i t i onal A s s oc, I

nc. v. E m pi r e Bl ue30 C ro ss a n d

B lu e Sh ield , 6 6 9 A .2 d 9 7 5 , 9 7 9 -9 8 0 ( P a . S u p e r. C t. 1995) ( col l ect i ng Penns y l vani a ca s es r efus i ng t o fol l ow p rec ed en ts of

the lo w er f

ed era l cou rt s); s ee al

s o Ha ll v. P e n n sy lva n ia B d

. o

f P ro b a tio n a n d

P a ro le , 851 A

. 2d 859, 865 ( Pa. 2004) ( decli ni ng t o adoptconfl i ct i ng i nt erpr et at i on of f e d e ra l law b yth is C o u rt); s ee ge ner al l y Al l egheny C ount

y G en. Hos p
. v
. NLRB, 608 F. 2d 965, 969- 970 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ( defi ni ng p rec ed en t as “a sp ec ifi c le g al co n seq u en ce [a ri sing fro m ] a det ai l ed s etof fa ct s i n an ad judge d cas e orj udi ci al deci s i on, w hi ch i s t hen cons i der ed as furn is hi ng t he rul e fort he det erm ination o f a su b seq u en t case inv o lving iden ti ca l or sim il ar m at er i al fac t s and a ris in gin th e sa m e c o u rt o r a lo w e r c o u rt in the j udi ci alhi er ar chy

. ”) (em p h asis ad d ed an d footnot e om itted). A lth o u g h c o n sis ten c yb e tw e e n sta te a n d f e d e r a l co u rts is d e sira b le in th a t itp ro m o tes re sp e c t f o r th e law a n d p re v e n ts lit ig a n ts f

ro m f o ru m -sh o p p in g , the re is n o th in g in h e re n tly offe ns i ve aboutt w o s over ei gns r eac hi ng di ffe rentl egal concl us ions. I ndeed, s uch r es ul t s w er e cont empl at ed byour fede r al s y s t em, and nei t hers over ei gn i s r equi r ed t o, nor ex p ec ted to , y iel d to the o ther.
T hi r d, r ece ntact i on byt he East ern D i s t r i ctof P en n s y l vani a el i m i nat es t he pos s i bi l i t y t hat t hi s w i l l be a rec u rri n g p rob lem

. W h il e th is ca se w as pe n d ing , th e E astern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a adopt ed Local R ul e 83. 6 V I I ( C ) , w hi ch re q u ire s f

e d e ra l re in sta tem e n t to b e h e ld in a b e y a n c e u n til re in s ta te m e n t to s ta te p ra c tic e h a s b e e n d e c id e d

. V I.
A s emphasi zed be for e, i n decl ar i ng the l egal r i ght s of the par t i es befor e it , the D i s t r i ctC our ts ever el yr es t r i ct ed the tem p o ra l sc o p e o f

th e r ig h ts g ra n ted to S u rric k , g ra n tin g h im onl ya br i ef a bs ol ut i on fr om r equi r ement s and over sightof the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a. H e w as r equi r ed t o appl yfor31 r ei ns t at ementto the Penns y l vani a B arno l at ert han M ay15, 2005. A ccor di ng t o t he O ffi ce of D i s ci pl i nary C ouns el , Sur r i ck has notful l ycompl i ed w i t h the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der

. A l t hough h e m a d e th e a p p lica tio n f o r re in sta tem e n t to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia B ar, he ref

u sed to p a ythe c o sts of h is un d erly ing d isci p li n ary p r o c e e d i n g s a n d t o a p p l y f o r t h e r e q u i s i t e 3 6 h o ur s of CLE c o u rs e s . T o us t hi s i s verydi s turbi ng. Form or e than one ye ar Sur r i ck has had a f

r ee r i de i n m aint ai ni ng a l i m i t ed l aw offi ce w ith o u t r esp ec ti n g crit ical t im e c o n str aints o f th e d ec laratory ju d g m e n t o rd e r. S u rric k ’ s d e la yin p a y in g re in sta tem e n t co sts and enr ol l i ng i n t h e requi s i t e C L E cour s es i s notj us t i fi ed. B eca us e hi s Penns y l vani a sus pens i on per i od expi r ed on M ar ch 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , itm a d e n o t a w h it o f d if f e r e n c e w h ich p a rtyw o u ld pr evai l i n t hi s appea l

. So l ong as he r emai ns i nt enton pr act i ci ng l aw , Sur r i ck w oul d have t o r eappl yt o t he Penns y l vani a B arand enr ol l i n t he r equi r ed C L E cour s es r egar dl es s of w hetherhe or th e O f f ic e o f D isc ip lin a ryC o u n se l p re v a iled in th is a p p e a l. M or eover , t he quest i on of cost s of t he di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs i s n o ta m a t t e rw i t h i n th e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l j u d i c i a r y. T hi s i s a pur el ys t at e i s s ue th atcomes s ol el yw i t hi n t he j uri sdi ct i on of the P enn sy l van i a cou rt s. W e w il l no t perm itan y fu rth er d elay

. W e h ere b yaf firm t he dec l ar at oryj udgm entof the Di s tr i ctC our tw i t h t he fol l ow i ng c o n d iti o n s: n o t late r th a n ten d a y s a f ter th e m a n d a te o f

th is C our ti s s ues , Sur r i ck w i l l fi l e a c om pl et ed appl icat i on for r ei ns t at ementt o t he P enns y l vani a B ar , payal l cos t s r equi r ed for rei n sta t em ent, enrol l i n the r equ i si t e nu m ber of C L E cou rs es, and per fec tal l ot herr equi r ement s forr ei ns t at ement

. Shoul d he have a ny pr obl em w i t h t he amountow ed t o the C om m onw eal t h, he shal l n e v e r t h e l e s s p a yth e a mou n tr e q u e s t e d a n d th e n s e ek r ei m bur s ementof anyamount s he deems exce s s i ve onl yi n t he a p p r o p r i a t e P e n n s y l v a n i a a d m i n i s tr a t i v e a g e n c i e s o ri t s S u p r e me32 C o u rt, an d n o t in a n yf e d e ra l co u rt. I f S u r ric k c h o o se s n o t to fol l ow t hes e condi t i ons , he w i l l be cons i der ed i n vi ol at i on of a cr i t i cal por t i on of the dec l ar at oryj udgm entand w i t houtany fur theror derof thi s C our t , he w i l l be re qui r ed t o cl os e hi s l aw offi ce unti l h e is r ei ns t at ed t o pr act i ce l aw as a mem berof the P e n n s y lv a n ia B a r. B eca u se thi s or deremanat es fr om thi s C our t , no ot her c o u rt in th e T h ird Ju d icia l C irc u it h a s th e p o w e r o r a u th o rityto a m e n d o r m o d if

yit in a n yre s p e c t.
T he mandat e of thi s C our tw i l l i s s ue fort hw i t h.