*1 (1) to mental-health that he submit misconduct and further he commit no OLAP, if treatment OLAP determines by conducted evaluation (2) contract, shall be duration which into an OLAP enter necessary, (3) recommenda- all of OLAP’s treatment OLAP, comply with determined stay, stay will be the conditions of comply If Harmon fails tions. are taxed two-year suspension. Costs lifted, entire he will serve the Harmon. accordingly.
Judgment Kennedy, JJ., O’Donnell, Lanzinger, concur. O’Connor, C.J., and JJ., impose one-year dissent and would O’Neill, Pfeifer, French, stayed. with six months suspension Beckman, Counsel, Stacy Assistant Drexel, Solochek Disciplinary
Scott J. Counsel, relator. Disciplinary Harmon, se. pro
Paul Dare
Disciplinary
v.
Counsel
Cicero.
Disciplinary
[Cite as
Counsel
6,
Registration No.
counsel,
statement of
making
has
Cicero with
false
Relator,
charged
tribunal,
3.3(a);
in violation of
in conduct
engaging
law or fact to
Prof.Cond.R.
fraud, deceit,
dishonesty,
misrepresentation,
or
violation of Prof.
involving
8.4(c);
justice,
in conduct
to the administration of
engaging
prejudicial
Cond.R.
*2
8.4(d);
engaging
adversely
violation of Prof.Cond.R.
conduct
reflects
8.4(h).
law, in
practice
on
fitness to
violation of Prof.Cond.R.
disciplinary charges.
This is Cicero’s third time before the court on
In
{¶ 2}
1997,
practice
year
engaging
we
Cicero from the
of law for one
suspended
justice
to the administration of
to maintain a
prejudicial
failing
conduct
courts,
attitude toward
resрectful
attorneys,
based
his insinuation
other
counsel, that
a
including
opposing
having
relationship
his
he was
sexual
with a
Cicero,
before whom he was
v.
judge
practicing. Disciplinary Counsel
78 Ohio
(1997).
heard testimony, reviewed the and made of fact findings and conclu- sions of panel law. The found that 3.3(a), 8.4(c), Cicero had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) 8.4(d), and and recommended an indefinite suspension of Cicero’s license to review, practice law. Upon board amended the panel’s findings to add a specific finding Cicero’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to constitute 8.4(h). violation of Prof.Cond.R. The board also modified the panel’s recommen- permanent dation and recommended disbarment instead of an suspen- indefinite sion. Cicero has filed an objection, challenging only the board’s recommenda-
tion of permanent disbarment. For purposes objection, Cicero accepts the panel’s findings law, of fact and conclusions of as by modified the board. For reasons, following objection. we sustain Cicero’s
Misconduct This case centers around Cicero’s conduct in the Franklin County {¶ 6} Municipal receiving Court after speeding ticket Columbus. Having handled number of traffic large cases and having appeared court on municipal judges, prosecutors, with the occasions, was familiar Cicero numerous that court. policies ticket, speeding day receiving after On March VanDerKarr. Cicero arraignment judge, Scott municipal-court
approached blank, but ticket and obtained speeding of his Judge informed VanDerKarr testimony as to what Cicero told conflicting There is judgment entry. signed, prosecutor, indicated that a According judge, to the VanDerKarr. Judge name, of his But Cicero charge. offered him a reduction he identified who going that he was to talk to an unnamed judge only that he told the claims time, with the ticket had neither been filed speeding At the prosecutor. number, and no had offered to amend or prosecutor nor a case assigned court arraignment-court not consult the ticket. Cicero did speeding reduce Cicero’s he wanted to seek out a mоre “favorable” Levering, Rob because prosecutor, prosecutor. *3 assistant, Carrell, instructions, filled in the Tyler Following Cicero’s
{¶ 8} 3, entry and filed it on 2012. The amended Cicero’s judgment entry April blank 4513.04, violation under R.C. an offense that headlight violation to a speeding (Cicero of a license any danger suspension. no and eliminated “points” carries tickets, and his driver’s approximately speeding received 50 previously had result.) amendment of a suspended speeding had twice been as license contrary city attorney’s policy to the equipment infraction to an violation was to the offense. original all amendments relate it judgment entry incomplete, to be as did not Finding April bailiff, guilt, Judge
include a the clerk’s office contacted VanDerKarr’s finding entry, both Basham and judgment Mike Basham. In an effort to correct the regarding identity prosecutor contacted of the who Judge VanDerKarr citation, a prosecutor. to amend his but Cicero refused to name After his agreed Cicero, VanDerKarr issued a warrant for Judge fruitless conversation of court. contempt Cicero’s arrest VanDerKarr, Judge conversation with Cicero drafted a Following his Baker, chief city attorney’s prosecutor.
letter to Lara N. Cicero’s letter described the of events as follows: sequence ticket and asked your person my I talked to one of and showed assistants] * * * or not I could amend it.
whether time which [arraignment judge Judge I went to the court] then your him I ticket that office was speeding I informed had [VanDerKarr]. * * * willing amend[.] Hi * [*] * * * agreement by your made office only why Judge
[T]hat was the reason agreed VanDerKarr to the amendment.
Cicero admits that he intentionally regarding lied sequence events de- scribed his letter and that he approval prosecutor did have from a when he approached Judge VanDerKarr. 5, 2012, On April appeared before Judge VanDerKarr warrant,
arrest but Judge refused answer VanDerKarr’s requests direct the name of the who prosecutor had offered to amend his speeding citation. Baker, present, who was also spoken stated she had with all but three of her staff and that each staff member offering denied Cicero an amendment. One of the staff members Baker had not reached was former assistant prosecutor Brandon Shroy, day whose last city attorney’s work at the office was March 2012. Upon Cicero’s request for hours to “talk to somebody,” Judge VanDer- Karr recessed the contempt hearing $1,000 and allowed Cicero post cash bond for his release. Judge Cicero, “Tomorrow, VanDerKarr warned if you don’t name, give me cash bond will be forfeited and you’ll go jail.” recess, Following Cicero approached Basham and Shroy identified as the prosecutor who made the offer. Cicero Shroy. also called According to Shroy, Cicero if asked he could Shroy’s use name in connection with a ticket he received, had him Shroy told no. hand, on the other testified that he Shroy told that there was a problem with the Shroy amеndment him given if Shroy asked he remembered the offer. Cicero testified that after leaving the arraignment courtroom on March he had a 20-second conversation with Shroy and that Shroy authorized Cicero to amend his speeding ticket. *4 Shroy denied any that such conversation had occurred. 6, 2012, On April resumed, before the contempt hearing
{¶ 13} spoke Basham, who relayed to Judge VanDerKarr that Cicero had admitted that he did not have an offer when he approached Judge VanDerKarr in arraignment court, court. In Cicero denied that making statement and Shroy named as the prosecutor who authorized the reduction. But again refused to explain how alleged the plea offer came Judge about. VanDerKarr agаin continued the contempt bond, hearing, revoked Cicero’s and remanded custody. Cicero into Cicero spent days jail. five April On Cicero appeared Judge before
{¶ 14} VanDerKarr with counsel, withdrew his plea violation, the headlight and no pleaded contest to original speeding violation. attorney stated that Cicero recognized delay caused by his failure to Judge answer questions VanDerKarr’s and claimed that there had been a “fundamental misunderstanding” among office, the prosecutor’s and the court. relayed Counsel Cicero’s “sincere!] contempt cited Cicero for Judge VanDerKarr for the inconvenience.” apologfy] him to time served. and sentenced violated findings his conduct challenge the board’s Cicero does 8.4(h). 8.4(d), 3.3(a), 8.4(c), and
Prof.Cond.R.
Sanction
misconduct, we consider the
attorney
sanctions for
imposing
When
state,
caused,
sanc-
violated,
attorney’s
mental
and
injury
the actual
duties
Buttacavoli,
Bar Assn. v.
96 Ohio
Cty.
in similar cases. Stark
imposed
tions
mended indefinite
the board cited
(2)
(1)
violations;
dishonesty
repeated disciplinary
[Cicero’s]
throughout
disciplin-
behavior that is
self-serving
prevalent
[Cicero’s]
(3)
cases;
subject
in the misconduct that
is the
of this
ary
engaging
(4)
case was
proceeding
pending;
while his most recent
fit to
longer
practice
profession
Board’s conclusion that
is no
[Cicero]
(5)
candor;
trust,
the Board’s conclusion
grounded
integrity,
necessary
protection
public.
to ensure the
of the
disbarment
*5
misconduct,
In
of
a violation
involving multiple
including
cases
instances
8.4(c),
an actual
Counsel v.
impose
suspension. Disciplinary
of Prof.Cond.R.
we
¶
385,
cited Disciplinary
Counsel v.
N.E.2d
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Squeo, 133 Ohio St.3d
2012-Ohio-
5004,
board an who was complaint against attorney Bar filed a the Cincinnati Association documents, fabricating forging a already serving two-year suspension to secure notarization of the attorney, lying power on a of signature power wife’s The associa- forged document to obtain credit. bar attorney, using of returns, tax failed to alleged attorney tion’s that the had failed file complaint liabilities, proceedings. a affidavit in his domestic-relations tax and filed false pay violations of Prof. attorney allegations acknowledged admitted the 8.4(b) act that lawyer committing illegal from reflects (prohibiting Cond.R. trustworthiness), (c), (d), (h), honesty or but he adversely lawyer’s on the objected permanent to the board’s recommendation for disbarment. overrul- objection, a lack of remorse and stated that ing genuine we found ability deceit that he lacks the attorney’s “pattern lying strongly suggests in upon attorneys to conform his behavior to the ethical standards incumbent this ¶ state.” Id. at 35. intrinsically The conduct in Farrell and was connect- alleged overlapped with the action. Both underlying attorney’s prior disciplinary
ed conduct attorney’s dishonesty cases stemmed from the financial in relation to his deterio- with his wife. The misconduct in when rating relationship attorney’s began income-tax returns stopped filing making regular and ceased estimated later, at 7. payments liability. years toward his income-tax Id. Two attorney undertook a again “pattern deception” included the dishonest and fraudulent conduct underlying disciplinary panel his first case. Id. The found attorney engaged six-year pattern that the “had in a pathological lying conduct, acted with a intent to deceptive premeditated decеive the domestic- [bjoard.” court, testimony relations and submitted false to another of the panel ¶ Moreover, attorney Id. at “continued to his web of lies” even while spin in expressing prior remorse case. Id. at 33. akin Squeo This case is more to Frost and than to Farrell. Like the in
attorneys
Squeo,
engaged
Frost and
Cicero has
of dishonest
motives, and,
conduct with
attorneys,
selfish or dishonest
like those
he should
face
suspension.
deception linking
disciplin-
indefinite
Unlike the continued
Farrell, however,
ary
attorney
disciplin-
violations committed
Cicero’s
ary history
prior disciplinary
involves three distinct matters. Cicero’s
violations
findings
dishonesty, misrepresentation,
Although
were
based on
or fraud.
disciplinary
contrary
witness
Cicero’s first
actiоn testified
to Cicero’s
testimony,
relationship
judge
begun
judge
with the
before the
failed to raise that
herself,
disciplinary
counsel
recused
the board concluded
Although
the mere
this is Cicero’s
that
Bar
permanent
mean
his misconduct merits
disbarment.
Columbus
190,
{¶26} conduct, censurable prejudicial justice which was to the administration of adversely Nevertheless, which reflects on Cicero’s fitness to law. in practice light circumstances, of this court’s precedent considering all of the including the aggravating factors, factors and lack of significant mitigating we do not find сonduct, be, Cicero’s egregious it though may rises to the level for which we Instead, reserve the sanction of permanent disbarment. we determine that indefinite suspension appropriate is for Cicero’s misconduct.
Conclusion reasons, For these indefinitely suspend we Christopher Thomas Cicero
from the in practice of law Ohio. Costs are taxed to Cicero.
Judgment accordingly. JJ., concur. Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Kennedy, O’Neill, O’Connor, C.J., J., dissent. Lanzinger,
O’Connor, C.J., dissenting. once, permits who himself to tell a lie it “[H]e finds much easier to do it
{¶ 28} time, a second and a habitual; third till at it length becomes he tells lies without it, attending and truths believing without the world’s him. This falsehood of heart, tongue leads to that of and in time all its depraves good 14 19, 1785), Jefferson, (Aug. reprinted Lettеr to Peter Carr
dispositions.” Thomas (1953). Papers in The of Thomas Jefferson 406 8 to the well-founded panel I must dissent. The and board came in wholly version of events this matter was incredible.
conclusion of fact and conclusions of law expressly accepted findings the board’s this, majority appears this court. objections Despite he has filed with version of events and uses them to aspects lend credence to certain the insidiousness of adequately recognize arrive at conclusion does not Cicero’s behavior. disagree majority’s logic finding any I must also with the substantive Farrell, Bar v. 129
distinction between this case and Cincinnati
Assn.
Ohio St.3d
motivated,
223,
{¶ board, panel’s credibility will defer to a determinations in our indepen- “[w]e discipline weighs heavily dent review of cases unless the record those against Heiland, Disciplinary determinations.” Counsel v. 2008- Ohio-91, 467, 39, Statzer, 880 N.E.2d citing Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. 101 Ohio 8. The case panel board this matter, found that Cicero was throughout underlying deceitful the that he made turn,” “misrepresentations every at almost and that his behavior during disciplin- ary proceedings was “inexcusable.” has been to these Nothing offered rebut determinations. To the contrary, accepts majority strays Cicero them. Yet the determinations, from the board’s which credibility were based the Cicero others, determining when the sanction in appropriate this case. panel in this case found that unequivocally Cicero “never received prosecutor offer from a to amend his traffic citation.” It happen. did not Instead, strategically Cicero the court exploited system frequently where he worked in to judgment entry. order obtain a blank And he attempted perpetrate a fraud on by unilaterally modifying entry the court with no approval or even review aby рrosecutor judge filing entry or with the entry clerk’s office. After a error in the simple brought light, Cicero’s fraud office, he lied to that an Judge prosecutor’s claiming VanDerKarr and the entire not him given assistant somehow could name—had prosecutor Cicero —who to writing Cicero committed this falsehood permission to amend ticket. prosecutor’s submitted it to the court and the office. end than to the wrongdo- But the charade did not there. Rather admit
ing, herrings, ignored by majority, Cicero out a school red threw transparent attempt being caught prose- to avoid red-handed a nonexistent cutor. Cicero made the outlandish for his under oath: following excuses lie while (1) he could who was Judge prosecutor not tell VanDerKarr the assistаnt because no him entry, one had what problem judgment preventing told was with him from he was understanding being identify asked to the assistant (2) prosecutor, only Cicero asked name given Judge was which he had initially entry, VanDerKarr when he asked for judgment preventing the blank Cicero from that what the understanding questioners actually wanted know (3) ticket, prosecutor was which to amend agreed Judge VanDerKarr was (4) so unreasonably angry that could not word in get edgewise, Cicero was secretly protecting prosecutor from a chief prosecu- assistant vindictive (5) tor, secretly protecting Judge was from prosecutor VanDerKarr the chief (6) himself, from apparently want Judge VanDerKarr he did not to give Judge VanDerKarr satisfaction of information having any because entire (7) fault, situation Judge was VanDerKarr’s questions all happening were so fast that he did have provide prosecutor’s the wherewithal to the assistant (8) name, some unnamed or person persons had asked Cicero “not to say anything.” quiver of untruths if is notable its depth, nothing else. And moments after Cicero learned information made ex- assistant-prosecutor Shroy Brandon scapegoat, changed convenient (or story him, to a more concrete falsehood: Shroy “Shroyer”) as Cicero called was the prosecutor assistant had given who to amend the permission ticket. That lie crumbled when it later explained Shroy’s specialized “zone *9 attorney” initiative position city at the prosecutоr’s office did not involve traffic or matters, criminal Shroy assigned any courtroom, was not to arraignment and multiple office policies prohibited Shroy would have from to the agreeing amend- Further, ment that had Cicero filed. the time Cicero to have spoken claimed with Shroy ticket, Shroy about the was in an participating exit interview and office, packing up his as it his day prosecutor’s was second-to-last at the working him, by office. against Unfazed the solid evidence Cicero to impugn continued Shroy’s professional integrity by falsely that claiming he had filed the amended ticket with Shroy’s blessing, Shroy lying, that was now and that Cicero had done no wrong. fraud Cicero’s and intentional with interference his traffic-court and
contempt proceedings formed the basis of contempt finding the trial court’s and on traffic judgment to vacate the Cicero’s violation the motion city prosecutor’s charge means of fraud. that obtained the reduced grounds on Cicero had counsel, agreed court to allow Cicero to with the negotiations After Cicero’s original entry grounds of the on of original vacating his instead plea withdraw to a new plea original speeding then Cicero enter to the The court allowed fraud. required violation, exchange, was of over 50. the court which the latest that he had recognized to state on the record that Cicero attorney Cicero’s to that he inconvenience the delayed proceedings apologized сourt and court. lead to might on record one Although sincere-appearing apology attorney, Cicero and his William degree part,
infer contrition Cicero’s some Ireland, to of that belief. testified that he dispel any possibility made sure statement, attorney with he called “canned” that his nothing to do what VanDerKarr, that his solely appease Judge only the statement and presented during that time did his due to pass proceedings was additional concession judge. taking responsibility with Far for his miscon- “back and forth” from matter, any aspect duct his role Cicero continued to regretting or even “bullshit,” that the him proceedings against others and maintained were blame entirely retaliatory, that that they Judge repeatedly were VanDerKarr had “lied” “insane,” his rip and that Cicero “wanted to heart out.” was and Goddamn that was Judge Ireland testified the statement VanDerKarr’s creation justice, prejudiced Cicero’s actions had not in fact the administration of because hogwash.” Despite majority’s attempt was proceeding “pure entire here from this distinguish prior proceedings, Cicero’s conduct his evasive, testimony exactly deceptive, demonstrates same kind dishon- prior suspensions. est two conduct resulted Cicero’s acknowledge any wrongdoing inability refusal to and his talk Cicero’s in an manner during about his actions honest and nonevasive became even clearer many before court. avoided of our argument questions this focus to fеigned attempts allegedly conflicting confusion and divert us, testimony. Despite replete the record before which with instances of blame, us dogged accept slightest refusal to even the he assured it, one, “I’m all of and I have.” taking responsibility day always from And somewhat to our yet, responsive on those occasions when Cicero was least Judge that Brandon were the questions, Shroy he maintained VanDerKarr in the or that it their statements that should not be wrong ones who were believed. suggest any genuineness There is before us to nothing misconduct, acceptance for his lies
purported responsibility careers of willingness integrity legal profession- to assail the other continued
17 Thus, to this is lamentable. while averred court that “I’vе crucified als about,” I self-flagellation more than care to think his claims of are myself here, disingenuous. importantly purposes implication More his that or, inflicted he has worse it punishment says mitigating yet, himself that sanction, is a sufficient is indefensible. spectacular deflecting talent for blame minimizing and misbe- 39}
{¶ conduct in inability havior reflects himself an ethical manner. That inability portends great risk his clients endangers public legal and and the profession. It is jurisprudence fortunate our does not contain many cases scarcity similar to one at But of examples
are
hand.
not
guiding
should
drive us to look to less
in
serious cases
order to determine the appropriate
Frost,
Although
sanction here.
were
in
suspensions
appropriate
indefinite
Boggs,
Squeo,
and
in
play
circumstances
those cases render them inapposite.
It is
that the
in
was
respondent Boggs
true
not disbarred after
third
41}
{¶
disciplinary proceeding, but disbarment was
apparently not considered as
¶
190,
misconduct.
{¶ history in Squeo involved suspensions comply mere administrative for failure to *11 18 Bar requirements. Columbus and continuing-legal-education registration
with
¶
321,
1, 6.
{¶
Farrell,
years-
in
in a
case,
engaged
Fаrrell
respondent
because the
disbarment
court,
conduct,
a
intentionally deceived
of dishonest and fraudulent
long pattern
to
claiming
to this
while
disciplinary
to lie to the
board and
court
and continued
¶
Farrell,
223,
23,
at
2011-
citing
Majority opinion
remorseful.
be
¶
Ohio-2879,
22,
in
390,
explicit
at
But as
board
an
recognized
N.E.2d
33.
951
behavior that is
“pattern
dishonesty
self-serving
showed a
of
and
finding, Cicero
i.e.,
cases,”
to
from 1993
2012.
throughout
disciplinary
[Cicero’s]
prevalent
conduct,
matches
to
perfectly
up
of Farrell almost
Cicero’s
majority’s description
has
over a
pattern
dishonesty
that
of
decade
exception
spanned
with the
Cicero’s
dignity
has
to the
of the
years
repeated
rather than a few
involved
affronts
professionals.
reputations
legal
and the
of court officials and other
courts
1993,
clients,
by
In
prosecutor,
colleagues
lied to
an assistant
Cicero
a
who
stating
relationship
judge
presiding
he had
active sexual
with
was
Cicero,
Disciplinary
case
of
v.
78 Ohio
over a
of one Cicero’s clients.
Counsel
(1997).
351,
in
judge
so
N.E.2d 517
He lied that the
was
interested
St.3d
through
him
having
probably
proceed-
sex with
that she would
rush
the client’s
client,
in
Id. at
He
this to a
ings
pastime.
order to return to
351.
lied about
who,
result,
as a
others to retain Cicero’s services. Id.
encouraged
potential
sharing
In
he
of a
client
the client’s
betrayed
by
trust
information, writing,
in
football coach at
high-profile
confidential
with
head
Ohio
University. Disciplinary
the Ohio State
Counsel
¶
avoid the latest over 50 which had him already earned two driver’s suspensions, through license lies evasions. words, law, habitually In other than accept broke rather consequences, he attempted up defraud court and then tried cover bailiff, court, against judge, fraud additional lies and more aspersions else prosecutors, anyone might put who him held danger being responsible actions. *12 stance, Contrary to the I majority’s see no reason to lessen Cicero’s
sanction simply because misconduct was different this time. It does matter Cicero’s three cases did not from a spring common source. is relevant, How misbehaves not relevant here. And if it even were there is a running thrоugh common thread his three cases. Cicero’s others, dishonesty, blaming courts, for disrespect legal process for the behavior, self-serving feigned fact, remorse is unrelenting. it is his willingness to defraud and the court impugn system in a great variety unrelated circumstances that is the all. troubling most Cicero has act courts, failed to or ethically respectfully toward the failed provide testimony to honest to multiple disciplinary panels, even to failed any admit genuine remorse to this claiming court while to responsibility take full everything happened. has He proven has willing sabotage the integrity of legal proceedings and the reputations professionals of other legal interests, advance his personal proven and he hаs be unwilling acknowledge any actual in the wrongdoing overwhelming face of certainly evidence. This “ ‘suggests that he the ability lacks to conform his behavior to the ethical ” standards incumbent upon attorneys opinion this state.’ Majority Farrell, quoting has behavior reinforced worst of about stereotypes legal
profession. In order to preserve courts, integrity of our protect legal other professionals, and maintain the public’s confidence in the legal profession, disbar- ment suitable I only sanction here. therefore dissent. J., concurs in the opinion. foregoing
Lanzinger, Drexel, Counsel, Scott J. Disciplinary Joseph Caligiuri, M. Chief Assistant Counsel, Disciplinary Scheetz, and Donald Counsel, M. Disciplinary Assistant relator. T. se.
Christopher
prо
Appellee.
Winkler, Clerk,
Smith, Appellant,
v.
ex rel.
The State
Winkler,
rel.
v.
State ex
Smith
[Cite
as
20,
1}{¶
reasons, we affirm.
following
For the
of mandamus.
appeal
in 2004. He
guilty
was found
several offenses
filed
Smith
See,
judgment.
e.g.,
several other actions based
State
apparently
(direct
Smith, C-040348, 2005 WL 1st Hamilton No. Dist. *13 appeals, of mandamus in the court of filed a a writ appeal). complaint He file-stamp original County the Hamilton Clerk of Courts1 seeking compel was sentencing entry file-stamped claimed that never entry. He final, court of dismissed appealable appeals not a order. The therefore is action on December entry reject Smith’s claim two reasons. We convictions, First, successfully argued and he actually appealed Smith
4}{¶ that the court failed to advise him of sentencing that his was deficient in 2005-0hio-1325, 22-23. control. WL postrelease possibility deficiency Presumably, entry correcting superseding a new was issued case, having any has although party provided copy. no here entry, sentence, entry cannot now claim that the successfully the 2004 Smith appealed appealable. not final and was Second, inadequate. time stamp has failed to show that the Smith subject appeal “a a final judgment have of conviction is order held
We (1) forth the fact of entry sets judgment under R.C. 2505.02 when Williams, County respondent Hamilton clerk complaint as John M. former 1. Smith’s named Winkler, Clerk, Tracy respondent. as the current courts. We have substituted