{¶ 1} This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Appellee and intervening appellee have filed motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that appellant failed to perfect its appeal.

{¶ 2} The motions to dismiss are granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.

concurring.

{¶ 3} I concur in the decision to dismiss the appeal but write separately to emphasize that dual filing requirements should be abolished. A. Schulman, Inc. v. Wilkins, 112 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2006-Ohio-6677, 859 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 6 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). They serve no useful purpose. Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 110 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2006-Ohio-4091, 852 N.E.2d 178 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). Dual filing requirements are a trap for attorneys operating outside their normal area of practice. Prosecuting attorneys are not normally expert in the procedures associated with public-utility law. In this case, that lack of experience led to the prosecuting attorney’s failing to deliver a notice of appeal to the Public Utility Commission of Ohio’s docketing division and, ultimately, to a dismissal other than on the merits. In other circumstances, I *1236might have cast a dissenting vote, but in this case, the prosecuting attorney had an opportunity to cure the filing defect but did not avail himself of it.