*1 owned the state. This case decides whether the state retains title city acquired by public to the W&A Railroad or whether the title pedestrian crossing. required company use of the leasing Those cases safety regulations the W&A Railroad to follow the same companies.14 other railroad response question, City

In to the certified we conclude that the acquire right against Marietta and the cannot the State of Georgia crossings Depot by implied to use the and Dobbs Streets express dedication, but must obtain the consent of the state. negative. Question answered in the All the Justices concur. 2000. Haynie, Douglas Haynie, Crane, R. Emilie K. Petro- Litchfield appellant. vich, for Casey, Shingler, Gilson, Williams & Williams, Matthew D. San- Gray, appellee. dra for Sumner,

Walter E. amicus curiae. S00Y1531. IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. FALANGA.

(533 Per curiam. Voluntary Robert A. filed a Dis- (a cipline admitting he violated Standard 12 shall not solicit professional employment as a himself, through personal or associate direct contact with a non- regarding employment who has not lawyer) pending Rule 4-102 in order to resolve three disci- plinary public reprimand, matters. He seeks the accept Falanga’s petition. the State Bar recommends the Court part response investigation As of his to the State Bar’s constitutionally pro- cases, contended that his conduct was speech accordingly, tected and, he filed a lawsuit the United Georgia August States District Court for the Northern District of challenging constitutionality 24, 1995, of the State Bar rules that prohibit potential solicitation of clients. The District Court found Standards cuit Court of 16 and unconstitutional, but the Eleventh Cir-

Appeals reversed that 19, 1998, decision on Gray, (1931); See Western & A. R.R. v. 172 Ga. 286 SE Louisville & N. R.R. Hames, Co. v. 135 Ga. 67 SE (11th Cir. Georgia, 150 F3d v. State Bar Falanga’s petition Court denied writ United States Georgia, v. State Bar

of certiorari. admits, did in his he federal telephone he clients mail and solicita- cases, obtained 12. He avers that he and that conduct violated Standard such *2 and the Eleventh Circuit’s decision has and honored accepted in form of solicitation. engaging any ceased may by 12 be Although punished a violation of Standard disbar- with ment, agree Falanga we have the record and reviewed a and consistent with reprimand appropriate of Kottis, in Case In the Matter No. this Court’s recent order of (decided 2000) 28, (imposition public reprimand of S99Y1616 prior has no particularly of Standard for violation Eleventh Circuit’s willing by and is to abide disciplinary record his violation of hereby it is ordered Accordingly, decision. (d), 4-102 A. 12 of Bar Rule Robert be Standard to pursuant a in court Bar public reprimand open administered (b) (3) (c) 4-220 a judge superior Rules 4-102 and court or in the where his infrac- county disciplinary where resides occurred. concur, All discipline the Justices voluntary accepted. Hunstein, J, who dissents. except Justice, dissenting.

Hunstein, 4-102 prohibits Standard of State Rule from soliciting him-

professional employment con- self, associate, or direct personal with a who nonlawyer regard- tact has not lawyer. A violation of this standard ing employment may punished by be disbarment. engaged in-person admits he in the uninvited and solici- in injured family and members need of persons grieving

tation mitigation in argues services in violation Standard but legal constitutionally protected that he believed his conduct was in wilfully engaged Because and conduct speech. Falanga knowingly States clearly proscribed by Standard and United Assn., U. S. 447 both Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar SC 444) Fane, LE2d Edenfield 543) (1993), discipline a State’s upheld “unsophis- who in uninvited solicitation engages in-person Ohralik, I ticated, injured, supra distressed lay persons,” also 12. See Standard under as authorized would disbar and Government Organization for the Regulations Rules Enforcement Conduct of Professional Georgia, Rules Bar of State (effective January 1, 4-102, Rule 7.3 IV, 1, DR thereof, Chapter Part for direct (also of disbarment penalty for maximum providing by lawyers). solicitations 10, 2000. Bar, K. Mit- III, Jenny State Counsel P. Smith General

William Bar, Bar of Geor- for State Counsel State telman, General Assistant gia. OF HUMAN RESOURCES. DEPARTMENT HARGIS v.

S00A0162. (533 SE2d Justice. Hines, (“DHR”) filed suit Resources of Human The Department minor. answered Hargis’s paternity William establish 1997, an amend- *3 July trial. On 1997, demanding jury May extinguished which effective 19-7-40 became ment to OCGA § non-jury Trial was set on in a suit. paternity trial jury right was denied. trial, which jury filed a motion Hargis calender interlocutory review This application granted Hargis’s jury to a right he did not have that ruling the trial court’s consider trial. to him 19-7-40 amended OCGA § that applying contends

Hargis See Ga. by jury. to trial right him of the unconstitutionally deprives Human XI; v. I, Kelly Dept. Par. I, Art. Sec. Const. (1) (498 It is with SE2d 384, 384-385 Resources, 269 Ga. he filed his jury to a trial when had a that out question (b). Thus, is question 19-7-40 former OCGA demand. See § 1,1997, may be statute, July effective to the the amendment whether ban constitutional light Georgia’s application retroactive given X; I, I, Par. Can 1983, Art. Sec. Const. of laws. See Ga. on retroactive (1) SE2d 102, 105 Lathem, 253 Ga. Mills v. ton Textile evi (1984). procedural involves mere which “Although legislation which legislation retrospectively, changes may operate dentiary only.” Enger prospectively may operate rights affects substantive (1980). law is “Substantive SE2d Erwin, 245 Ga. Procedural law duties, obligations. rights, creates law which of rights, enforcement methods of prescribes which law Holland, Ga. Polito v. duties, obligations.”