In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges

Supreme Court of Florida
______________
No. SC17-1936
______________
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF NEED
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES.
[November 22, 2017]
PER CURIAM.
This opinion fulfills our constitutional obligation to determine the State’s
need for additional judges in fiscal year 2018/2019 and to certify our “findings and
recommendations concerning such need” to the Legislature.1 Certification is “the
sole mechanism established by our constitution for a systematic and uniform
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
legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and recommendations
concerning such need.
assessment of this need.” In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 889
So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2004). In this opinion, we are certifying a need for two
additional circuit court judges, two additional county court judges, and none in the
district courts of appeal as discussed below. We are also decertifying the need for
thirteen county court judgeships.
TRIAL COURTS
The Florida Supreme Court continues to use a weighted caseload system as a
primary basis for assessing judicial need for the trial courts.2 Using this objective
threshold standard, we have examined case filing and disposition data, analyzed
various judicial workload indicators, applied a three-year average judicial need,
and considered judgeship requests submitted by the lower courts including all
secondary factors identified by each chief judge for support of their requests. We
have also incorporated a rigorous judicial workload per judge threshold analysis
and an allowance for administrative time spent by chief judges and county court
time spent on county election canvassing boards. Applying this methodology, this
Court certifies the need for four additional judgeships statewide, two of which are
in circuit court and two in county court. See Appendix. We are also decertifying
thirteen county court judgeships. See Appendix.
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. Jud. Admin. 2.240.
-2-
As noted in previous opinions, our judges and court staff continue to work
diligently to administer justice, promptly resolve disputes, and ensure that children,
families, and businesses receive the proper amount of judicial attention for their
cases. They do so despite a demonstrated need for additional judges since 2007
and with a smaller staffing complement.
Our most recent analysis of trial court statistics from fiscal year 2015/2016
to preliminary data for fiscal year 2016/2017 indicates a ten percent increase in
county civil filings (excluding civil traffic infractions), a five percent increase in
circuit civil filings (excluding real property/mortgage foreclosures), a three percent
increase in probate filings, and a two percent increase in dependency filings. At
the same time, criminal traffic filings (including driving under the influence)
declined by 16 percent, civil traffic infractions declined by six percent, county
criminal filings declined by five percent, juvenile delinquency filings declined by
five percent, and felony filings experienced a two percent decline.
Similar downward filing trends are occurring nationally and we continue to
closely monitor filing trends throughout the state as filings relate to judicial case
weights and influence workload analysis. It is notable, however, that the opioid
epidemic is severely impacting communities in Florida and across the country.
-3-
Ninety-one Americans die every day from an opioid overdose.3 This epidemic has
influenced Florida’s child welfare system and has resulted in an increased number
of dependency court cases throughout the state. Many trial courts have established
Early Childhood Courts for families affected by the opioid epidemic by offering a
continuum of evidence-based services, including Child-Parent Psychotherapy—an
intervention aimed at healing trauma. According to the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, Florida Medical Examiners Report, in 2016, six of the seven Florida
counties with the most opioid-related deaths have an Early Childhood Court in
place.4
Notwithstanding the decreases to some filing categories, our judicial
workload-per-judge analysis indicates that additional circuit court and county court
judgeships are necessary in some areas.
Chief judges have identified many workload trends that are affecting court
operations throughout the state. Several of the chief judges cited the additional
workload associated with the continuing expansion of problem-solving courts (e.g.,
Adult Drug Court, Veterans’ Court, Mental Health Courts, and Early Childhood
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Understanding the Epidemic,
(last updated August 30, 2017),
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html.
4. Florida Behavioral Health Association, Florida’s Opioid Crisis, (January
2017), available at
http://www.fadaa.org/links/Opioid%20Media%20Kit_FINAL.pdf.
-4-
Courts). We recognize that various studies have shown that well-conducted
problem-solving courts, such as drug courts, have been shown to reduce recidivism
and provide better outcomes for participants.5 Yet, these courts also require
significantly more judicial time on the front end due to more frequent status
hearings and multidisciplinary team meetings, typically over an extended period of
time. Other chief judges noted the impact of complex civil litigation, high jury
trial rates, and self-represented litigants. Collectively, these factors affect court
time and court resources.
The chief judges have also noted that the number and frequency of court
interpreting events protract case disposition times. Florida is an ethnically and
culturally diverse state with thousands of non-English speaking residents who
access our courts each year. This demand is expected to increase in coming years.
This Court is mindful of the demographic changes occurring in Florida and has
implemented rigorous steps to ensure that the quality of court interpreting services
remains high by requiring credentialed interpreters to provide interpreting services6
5. Shannon M. Carey, et al., What Works? The Ten Key Components of
Drug Court: Research-Based Best Practices, 8 Drug Court Review 6, 6-42 (2012);
Christopher Lowenkamp & Edward Latessa, Evaluation of Ohio’s CCA Funded
Programs (2005) (unpublished report) (University of Cincinnati, Division of
Criminal Justice); Deborah Koetzle Shaffer, Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug
Courts: A Meta-Analytic Review, 28 Justice Quarterly 493, 493-521 (2011).
6. See In re Amends. to Fla. Rules for Certification & Regulation of Spoken
Language Court Interpreters, 176 So. 3d 256, 257 (Fla. 2015).
-5-
and also by implementing video remote interpreting services in ten circuits using
credentialed interpreters which we would like to expand further. The application
of this technology demonstrates the court system’s commitment to cost
containment, innovation, and improved service delivery, while meeting due
process of law requirements.
Similar efforts are occurring using software applications such as Open Court
and the Integrated Case Management System developed by the Eighth Judicial
Circuit. Both software platforms are open source and have tremendous potential
for cost containment and the avoidance of vendor dependency issues associated
with the purchase of specialized technology. We encourage the Legislature to
favorably consider our Legislative Budget Request7 for technology as it
demonstrates the judicial branch’s commitment to apply technology in our service
delivery staffing models, to help minimize our requests for additional full-time
equivalent positions.
Nevertheless, chief judges advise that the lack of sufficient support staff
positions contributes to slower case processing times, crowded dockets, and longer
waits to access judicial calendars. Additional case management staff is a priority
for the judicial branch. Accordingly, we fully support the trial courts’ Legislative
7. The Florida State Courts System’s Legislative Budget Request for Fiscal
Year 2018/2019 is available on the Florida Fiscal Portal at
http://floridafiscalportal.state.fl.us/.
-6-
Budget Request8 that seeks additional funding for case managers, as these positions
are integral to case disposition, docket management, and pending caseload
reduction.
On a related matter, chief judges have advised us that because in-court
administrative staff, both case managers and in-court clerk’s office staff, has been
either reduced or eliminated due to budget reductions, many trial court judges are
now performing in-court administrative duties such as managing the court record,
handling exhibits, swearing witnesses, filing documents, and making notations in
the case management systems. Judges performing ministerial and administrative
functions is not the best use of judicial time and supports the need for additional
case management assistance that is best supplied by case managers.
Several of the chief judges also advised that they are experiencing difficulty
in securing senior judges to serve within their circuits. While the Court believes
that our senior judge day allotment may be sufficient, there simply are not enough
senior judges available to take the assignments. We remain concerned that the
one-year sit-out provision for retiring judges is therefore impeding the court
system’s ability to secure senior judges in different regions throughout the state.
8. The Florida State Courts System’s Legislative Budget Request for Fiscal
Year 2018/2019 is available on the Florida Fiscal Portal at
http://floridafiscalportal.state.fl.us/.
-7-
We encourage the Legislature to revisit the one-year sit-out requirement, as it is
detrimental to Florida’s court system and the administration of justice.
Our analysis, using the previously described judicial workload per judge
threshold methodology, indicates that there is a positive need for additional circuit
court and county court judgeships. In those circuits and counties where the need
exceeds the current number of authorized judicial positions, the workload impact
can vary depending on the total number of judges in a circuit available to absorb
the excess work. Our threshold methodology suggests a judicial need when the
ratio per judge is greater than 1.10. In practical terms, this means that judges must
share excess workload, leaving each judge with a total of 1.10 full-time equivalent
of judicial work prior to a circuit court or county court being considered for a new
judgeship.
The analysis also revealed that judicial need is less than the current number
of authorized positions among county court judgeships. That determination is
made through an examination of quantitative and qualitative secondary factors. A
reduction in judicial need is initially presumed to occur in any court where the
workload per judge is below 0.90. Judicial positions should be subtracted until the
ratio is at or above 0.90. To better assess whether we should decertify any trial
court judgeships, we conducted an analysis of secondary factors identified by the
chief judge of each affected county. The factors that might weigh against
-8-
decertification included geography, number of branch courthouses, access to
justice concerns, and other factors listed in the Florida Rules of Judicial
Administration.9 After careful consideration of all factors, we are certifying the
need for two additional circuit court judgeships in the Ninth Judicial Circuit and
two additional county court judgeships in Hillsborough County.
Applying these same factors, we are also decertifying county court
judgeships in the following counties: one county court judgeship in Alachua
County, three county court judgeships in Brevard County, one county court
judgeship in Charlotte County, one county court judgeship in Collier County, one
county court judgeship in Escambia County, one county court judgeship in Leon
County, one county court judgeship in Monroe County, two county court
judgeships in Pasco County, one county court judgeship in Polk County, and one
county court judgeship in Putnam County. With the exception of Monroe County,
where we are decertifying only one of the two county court judgeships that could
potentially be decertified, the decertification includes counties we monitored last
year that continue to demonstrate a negative need for two consecutive review
cycles. Due to the impact of Hurricane Irma in Key West and the uncertainties
related to litigation expected to occur in its aftermath, we will monitor the county
9. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.240(b)(1)(B).
-9-
court workload in Monroe County for an additional year as that county recovers
and stabilizes.
Over the next twelve months, we will be closely monitoring the judicial
workload of one circuit and nine counties10 that demonstrate a negative need, but
also identified supplemental factors recognized in rule 2.240, which influence
against decertification, to determine whether additional decertifications should
occur in next year’s certification of need opinion.
It is important to note that we did not certify the need for an additional
county court judgeship in three counties where they were requested (Citrus,
Flagler, and Lee) and we certified only two county judgeships in Hillsborough,
rather than the three requested, even though in all four requesting counties the
judicial workload per judge demonstrates a need. We recognize that those county
judges are currently shouldering what our data indicate to be more than a full-time
judicial workload. Citrus, Hillsborough, and Lee counties demonstrated a current
need, but were not certified additional judgeships, or in Hillsborough’s case is
being certified one fewer judgeship than requested, due to the continued decline in
each county’s judicial workload when compared to last year. Citrus County
workload declined by fourteen percent, Hillsborough County workload declined by
10. Eighth Judicial Circuit, Brevard County, Collier County, Duval County,
Leon County, Miami-Dade County, Monroe County, Pinellas County, Polk
County, and Volusia County.
- 10 -
four percent, and Lee County workload declined by seven percent. Considering
the possibility that this downward trend will continue, if this Court certified the
need for an additional county court judgeship this year, we might be obligated to
decertify the same county court judgeship in the near future. In Flagler County,
the county court judicial workload per judge increased two percent when compared
to last year. However, if an additional county court judgeship were certified this
year, Flagler County’s judicial workload per judge would fall below the 0.90
threshold, thus putting this Court in the position of potentially decertifying the
same county court judgeship in next year’s opinion.
The Court does not take these steps lightly; rather, we do so recognizing that
we must remain consistent in our application of the workload methodology and our
obligations under Article V, section 9, of the Florida Constitution.
DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL
In keeping with our policy of not requesting judgeships unless qualified and
requested by the chief judge of a district court, we do not certify the need for any
additional district court judges.
In the fiscal year 2017/2018 certification opinion, the Court expressed a
concern with the judicial workload indicating possible overstaffing in the Third
District Court of Appeal. See In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges,
206 So. 3d 22, 36 (Fla. 2016). In addition, the Court requested input from the
- 11 -
Third District Court of Appeal regarding staffing since that court does not employ
a central staff model. Id.We appreciate the thorough response to our inquiries from the chief judge of
the Third District Court of Appeal. According to that response, the judicial
workload within the Third District Court of Appeal includes a large amount of
complex cases. The court handles multiple appeals and petitions involving
complex business litigation, class actions, forum non conveniens, tobacco liability
cases, bad faith insurance claims, and public development. Forum non conveniens
cases are often difficult because they include competing legal opinions regarding
the law of foreign countries.
The percentage of cases heard at oral argument in the Third District Court of
Appeal was also double the figures for the other district courts of appeal, as
documented by OPPAGA in its report issued in February of this year.11
Additionally, Miami-Dade has been a primary destination for immigrant juveniles
for the last two fiscal years. These cases present the judges in the Third District
Court of Appeal with substantive legal questions and due process issues that merit
and receive additional time and attention.
11. See Florida Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and
Government Accountability, A Review of the Florida District Courts of Appeal
Boundaries and Workload, Report No. 17-05, February 2017,
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/Summary.aspx?reportNum=17-05.
- 12 -
CONCLUSION
We have conducted both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of trial
court and appellate court judicial workload. Using the case-weighted methodology
and the application of other factors identified in Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.240, we certify the need for four additional trial court judges in
Florida, consisting of two in circuit court and two in county court, as set forth in
the appendix to this opinion. We are also recommending the decertification of
thirteen county court judgeships, also identified in the appendix, and we certify no
need for additional judges in the district courts of appeal.
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON,
and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Judges
- 13 -
APPENDIX
Trial Court Need
Circuit Court County Court County Court
Certified Certified Decertified
Circuit Judges County Judges Judges
1 0 Escambia 0 1
2 0 Leon 0 1
3 0 N/A 0 0
4 0 N/A 0 0
5 0 N/A 0 0
6 0 Pasco 0 2
7 0 Putnam 0 1
8 0 Alachua 0 1
9 2 N/A 0 0
10 0 Polk 0 1
11 0 N/A 0 0
12 0 N/A 0 0
13 0 Hillsborough 2 0
14 0 N/A 0 0
15 0 N/A 0 0
16 0 Monroe 0 1
17 0 N/A 0 0
18 0 Brevard 0 3
19 0 N/A 0 0
20 0 Charlotte 0 1
Collier 0 1
Total 2 Total 2 13
- 14 -