“inherent power” to discipline attorneys. See In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 643, 105 S.Ct. 2874, 86 L.Ed.2d 504 ( ral courts are free to exercise jurisdiction over all claims against attorneys that have practiced in front of them in the name of discipline, even if those claims relate to their practice of law. To allow such an expansive reach of federal jurisdiction would be contrary to the well-established maxim that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g.; Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673. Even if ancillary jurisdiction were possible through Zeisl’s tangential relationship to the German Foundation Agreement, the district court would have abused its discretion if it chose to exercise it. See Chesley v. Union Carbide Corp., 927 F.2d 60, 64, 65-66 (2d Cir.1991)(<HOLDING>). For these reasons, I would affirm the
holding that issue concerning forum non conveniens decision was not suitable for interlocutory appeal in part because a forum non conveniens decision is inherently factsensitive holding that a district court may dismiss based on forum non conveniens without first addressing personal jurisdiction holding that although a dismissal of the underlying litigation on forum non conveniens grounds did not automatically preclude the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction over a subsequent claim for attorneys fees exercise of such jurisdiction would nonetheless be an abuse of discretion where international comity required the district court to refrain from consideration of the claims holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that a district court has discretion to grant a defendants forum non conveniens motion to transfer before disposing of any other threshold challenges