It is not an unusual occurrence for one to look back upon times past and to long for their return. Remembering appellate practice as it was when I was first admitted to the bar, I cannot help but wish for the days when there were no page limitations on briefs; when each party received at least a half hour for oral argument; and when judges wrote opinions which, even if unpublished, fully addressed all of the arguments raised by counsel. This being the case, I was naturally pleased to accept the invitation of the Editors of the Review to write a conclusion - or Reply Brief, if your will - for this Symposium. It is, of course, a special honor to be able to participate in this dialogue on the Ohio appellate procedures with such distinguished authors. Judge Bell, who opens the symposium, is an able and respected judge before whom I have had the pleasure to argue cases. Professor Parness is a friend and colleague with whom I have worked cooperatively on many projects since we both came to the Law School in 1976. Mr. Reagle is one of my former students whose career I watch with great interest. Though I do not personally know Mr. Marvel, or Judges Black and Moyer, they are individuals whose articles and opinions I have had an opportunity to read with favorable impression. As for Judge Day, I knew him by reputation before our friendship began and find that he deserved all of the favorable commentary he has received and more. With so many different perspectives, there are bound to be disagreements between the participants of this Symposium. Happily, those disagreements are friendly ones which may have the effect of sparking new ideas which may be productive in improving the appellate system and thereby enhancing the quality of justice.