Many Supreme Court efforts to streamline the Federal Court system, such as adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence, have tended to emphasize the separate characteristics of the two systems. However, it should be remembered that both courts live in the same jurisprudential milieu and a common tendency exists in local Federal practice to follow local State practice. Moreover, there has been a resurgence of State-Federal judicial councils within the Second District that has promoted coordination. Topics that these councils might address include joint Federal-State jurisdiction questions, possible jurisdictional changes in the offing, and certification of State law questions by the Federal courts. State and Federal judges could resolve conflicts in trial schedules and share rather than compete for pro bono advocates. Also, reducing administrative difficulties via maximum Federal-State cooperation should be considered. Potential areas are computerized data banks, elimination of separate requirements for admission to the State and Federal bars, jury selection, use of expert witnesses, and differences in pay. Finally, judicial cooperation could reduce disparities between State and Federal sentencing decisions, benefit probation services, and reduce conflicts arising from Federal civil review of State criminal prosecutions. While the primary responsibility for better coordination lies with the legislature and to a lesser extent the executive, judges can encourage this process through their influence as members of the legal community. The paper includes 89 footnotes.