In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges ( 2022 )

Supreme Court of Florida
______________
No. SC22-1621
______________
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF NEED
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES.
December 22, 2022
PER CURIAM.
This opinion fulfills our constitutional obligation to determine
the State’s need to increase or decrease the number of judges in
fiscal year 2023-24 and to certify our “findings and
recommendations concerning such need” to the Florida
Legislature.1 Certification is “the sole mechanism established by
1. Article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides in
pertinent part:
Determination of number of judges.—The
supreme court shall establish by rule uniform criteria for
the determination of the need for additional judges except
supreme court justices, the necessity for decreasing the
number of judges and for increasing, decreasing, or
redefining appellate districts and judicial circuits. If the
supreme court finds that a need exists for increasing or
decreasing the number of judges or increasing,
decreasing or redefining appellate districts and judicial
circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular session of the
our constitution for a systematic and uniform assessment of this
need.” In re Certif. of Need for Addt’l Judges, 889 So. 2d 734, 735
(Fla. 2004).
In this opinion, we certify no need for additional county court,
circuit court, or district court of appeal judgeships. We certify the
need to decrease by one the number of county court judgeships in
Brevard County, and we certify that there is no need to decrease the
number of circuit court judgeships. Additionally, we acknowledge
excess judicial capacity in the First District Court of Appeal and the
Second District Court of Appeal resulting from recently enacted
changes to the jurisdictional boundaries of appellate districts and
the policy in that law (recommended by the Court and adopted by
the Legislature) of allowing a judge to continue to serve in the
district where the judge resided. As we explain, the Court
recommends that the Legislature address this excess appellate
judicial capacity over time by reducing the number of statutorily
authorized judgeships based on attrition, without requiring a judge
legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and
recommendations concerning such need.
-2-
to vacate his or her position involuntarily. This recommendation is
consistent with the approach the Court recommended last year in
its opinion on the need to create an additional district court of
appeal. In re Redefinition of App. Dists. & Certif. of Need for Addt’l
App. Judges, 345 So. 3d 703, 706 (Fla. 2021).
Trial Courts
The Court continues to use a verified, objective weighted
caseload methodology as a primary basis for assessing judicial need
for the trial courts. 2 The lower courts submit judgeship requests
that supplement the objective data, including descriptions of how
secondary factors are affecting those courts. The secondary factors
identified by each chief judge reflect local differences in support of
their requests for more judgeships or in support of their requests
for this Court not to certify the need to decrease judgeships in
2. Our certification methodology relies primarily on case
weights and calculations of available judge time to determine the
need for additional trial court judges. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud.
Admin. 2.240.
-3-
situations in which the objective case weights alone would indicate
excess judicial capacity.
Based on the analysis under this two-step methodology, we
conclude that there is no demonstrable need for an additional
circuit court or county court judgeship. 3 Considered in isolation,
the two-step analysis suggested certifying no need to decrease
circuit court judgeships and certifying the need to decrease two
county court judgeships in Brevard County and one county court
judgeship each in Alachua, Collier, and Monroe counties. However,
the Court determines that other relevant circumstances further
explained below, coupled with the secondary-factor analysis,
militate against certifying the need to decrease all but one of those
county court judgeships.
Under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial
Administration 2.240, the Commission on Trial Court Performance
and Accountability is responsible for reviewing the trial court
3. Applying the weighted caseload methodology, only Nassau
County would appear to be eligible for an additional county court
judgeship. However, if the Court were to certify the need for that
judgeship, the county would immediately fall below the workload
threshold suggesting the need to decrease that same judgeship.
-4-
workload trends and case weights and considering adjustments
every five years. The current cycle of workload trend and case
weight review began in Florida’s trial courts in December 2022 and
will conclude by June 2024. The statewide effort involves an
assessment of the workload of all trial court judges and will
consider the contributions of all quasi-judicial officers such as
senior judges, magistrates, child support enforcement hearing
officers, and civil traffic infraction hearing officers. The workload
assessment is comprehensive and will be carefully validated.
Several chief judges have commented on the importance of
updating the current case weights in order to capture a more
complete picture of case complexity addressed by trial court judges.
Since the last workload assessment and case weight update in
2016, state laws have changed significantly, affecting the courts’
work in interpreting and applying those laws. Further, court
operations have changed significantly, such as through the rapid
deployment of remote technology as a result of the Coronavirus
Disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19). We agree with the chief
judges’ observations that these and other developments warrant
-5-
reevaluation of the case weights that are the foundation of this
Court’s evaluation of judicial workload.
In addition, the lingering impact of workload stemming from
COVID-19 limits our ability to accurately project judicial need and
further militates against certifying the need to decrease trial court
judgeships. Notwithstanding significant progress in addressing
pandemic-related workload, it is estimated the trial courts will be
facing more than 210,000 pending cases above normal on July 1,
2023. As reflected in the State Courts System’s fiscal year 2023-24
legislative budget request, the Trial Court Budget Commission has
identified the need for temporary adjudicatory and case support
resources to address this workload. This third and final year of the
pandemic recovery plan, if funded, will provide Other Personal
Services (OPS) general magistrates, case managers, and staff
attorneys; facilitate additional use of senior judges; and expand
mediation services to help address increased workload caused by
COVID-19. The trial courts’ existing judicial resources are the
frontline of this pandemic-recovery effort.
Further, chapter 2019-58, section 9, Laws of Florida,
increased the dollar amount threshold for the jurisdiction of the
-6-
county court. The Legislature elected to adopt a phased approach
in the implementation of this statutory revision. Effective January
1, 2020, county court monetary jurisdiction increased from an
upper limit of $15,000 to $30,000, and it will increase to $50,000
on January 1, 2023. The jurisdictional expansion in county court
can reasonably be expected to increase workload in the county
courts.
The Court also considered other significant factors such as the
anticipated cases resulting from Hurricane Ian and Hurricane
Nicole, the continued expansion of drug courts and other problem-
solving courts and the increased judicial time associated with those
dockets, and judicial time related to the implementation of the civil
case management requirements that initially went into effect in In
re Comprehensive COVID-19 Emergency Measures for Florida Trial
Courts, Florida Administrative Order No. AOSC20-23, Amendment
10 4 (March 9, 2021). These factors also contributed to the Court’s
4. The requirements are now found in In re COVID-19 Health
and Safety Protocols and Emergency Operational Measures for
Florida Appellate and Trial Courts, Florida Administrative Order No.
AOSC21-17, Amendment 3 (Jan. 8, 2022).
-7-
cautious approach to certifying the need to decrease trial court
judgeships.
Mindful of these considerations, the Court does not
recommend decreasing the number of county court judges in
Alachua, Collier, or Monroe counties. The Court does, however,
recommend a decrease of one county judgeship in Brevard County.
We base this recommendation on a demonstrated, multi-year trend
of excess judicial capacity in that county.
District Courts of Appeal
In furtherance of our constitutional obligation to determine the
State’s need for additional judges in fiscal year 2023-24, 5 this
opinion certifies the need for no additional district court judgeships.
The Court recognizes excess judicial capacity in the First District
and the Second District based on the addition of a sixth district
effective January 1, 2023, along with corresponding jurisdictional
boundary changes in three existing districts. However, the Court
continues to recommend that this excess capacity be addressed
5. See supra note 1.
-8-
over time through attrition and therefore is not certifying the need
to decrease any district court judgeships.
In September 2021, the District Court of Appeal Workload and
Jurisdiction Assessment Committee determined that a sixth
appellate district should be created in Florida and that
accompanying changes should be made to the existing boundaries
of the First, Second, and Fifth districts. The Committee further
recommended that no existing district court judge’s position be
certified for elimination while that judge is in office and that no
existing district court judge should have to change residence in
order to remain in office as a result of the realignment of districts.
In its fiscal year 2022-23 certification opinion, the Court concurred
with the Committee’s recommendation, stating:
The Court concurs with the Committee’s
recommendation that realignment of districts not result
in decertification of judges or a requirement for judges to
change their residence in order to remain in office. . . .
....
Further, the Court recommends that the legislation
implementing the territorial jurisdiction changes specify
that vacancies will not be deemed to occur as a result of
the changes and recommends that excess judicial
capacity in a given district court be addressed over time
through attrition, as guided by this Court’s annual
-9-
certification of the need for additional appellate judges.
The creation of an additional district and changes to the
territorial boundaries of other districts are milestone
events that have not occurred since the creation of the
Fifth District Court of Appeal in 1979. It will take some
time to fully assess the impact of these changes on
workload and judicial need for any given court and
statewide.
In re Redefinition of App. Dists. & Certif. of Need for Addt’l App.
Judges, 345 So. 3d at 706.
The law creating a sixth district court of appeal and realigning
the boundaries of the existing First, Second, and Fifth districts
embodied this policy by specifying, in part:
No judicial vacancy may be deemed to occur as a
result of the addition of a sixth appellate district or
district realignment under this act. Effective January 1,
2023, a current district court of appeal judge residing in
a county, the district of which is realigned under this act,
shall be a district court of appeal judge of the new district
where he or she resided on December 22, 2021.
Ch. 2022-163, § 15, Laws of Fla.
Based on the workload analysis the Court conducted for this
first certification since the creation of a sixth district court of
appeal, we have determined that there is an estimated excess
capacity of one judgeship in the First District and three judgeships
in the Second District. To address this situation, this Court
- 10 -
recommends that during the 2023 Regular Session the Legislature
consider enacting legislation that provides for reduction in the
number of statutorily authorized district court judgeships based on
attrition and without requiring a judge to vacate his or her position
involuntarily. Such legislation could specify that, upon each
occurrence of an event that otherwise would have resulted in a
vacancy in the office of judge of the First District or Second District,
the number of authorized judges shall be reduced by one, until a
specified number of judges remain on each court; we recommend
that eventually, after attrition, there be 12 judges authorized for
each of those courts. The goal of the Court’s recommended
approach, consistent with last year’s opinion on the creation of a
new district court of appeal, is to address excess district court
judicial capacity without prematurely ending an existing judge’s
judicial career.
The Court continues to use a verified, objective weighted
caseload methodology as a primary basis for assessing judicial need
in the district courts of appeal, 6 as well as considering qualitative
6. Our certification methodology relies primarily on the
relative weight of cases disposed on the merits to determine the
- 11 -
factors and other factors analogous to those it considers in
assessing trial court workload. Based on that analysis, the Court
does not certify the need to decrease judgeships in the district
courts of appeal at this time. The Court does, however, recommend
addressing excess judicial capacity in the First and Second Districts
in the manner described above.
Notwithstanding legislative enactment of a statutory
framework using attrition in the First District and Second District
to rectify present excess capacity, the Court will continue to fulfill
its constitutional obligation to determine the State’s need for
additional appellate judges among all six districts and to certify its
recommendations concerning such need to the Legislature. As the
Court noted in its certification opinion for fiscal year 2022-23, it will
take some time to assess fully the effect of the jurisdictional
boundary changes on workload and judicial need for any given
district court and statewide. In re Redefinition of App. Dists. &
Certif. of Need for Addt’l App. Judges, 345 So. 3d at 706.
need for additional district court judges. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. &
Jud. Admin. 2.240.
- 12 -
Conclusion
We have conducted quantitative and qualitative assessments
of trial court and appellate court judicial workloads. Using the
case-weighted methodology and the application of other factors
identified in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial
Administration 2.240, we certify the need for no additional trial
court judgeships in Florida. We recommend a decrease of one
county court judgeship in Brevard County. We certify no need for
additional judgeships in the district courts of appeal. Finally, we
recommend legislation to reduce the number of statutorily
authorized judgeships in the First District and the Second District
based on attrition and without requiring a judge to vacate his or her
position involuntarily, as noted in this certification.
It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and
COURIEL, JJ., concur.
GROSSHANS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an
opinion.
FRANCIS, J., did not participate.
GROSSHANS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s opinion except in one respect—that
is, the decision to decrease one county court judgeship in Brevard
- 13 -
County. In my view, the reasons given by the majority as support
for not decreasing county court judgeships in three other counties
weigh in favor of retaining the current number of county judgeships
in Brevard County as well. I stress in particular the uncertainty in
projecting judicial need following the COVID-19 pandemic and the
acknowledged necessity of updating current case weights to
accurately reflect case complexity and judicial workload—including
the valuable time that county court judges expend in circuit court
roles. I do not believe that the “multi-year trend” on which the
majority relies, see majority op. at 8, negates the many substantial
reasons for retaining the current number of county judgeships in
Brevard County for now.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the portion of the
majority decision recommending a decrease of one county court
judgeship in Brevard County. I concur in all other respects.
Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Judges
- 14 -