Supreme Court of Florida No. SC2024-1721
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES.
December 12, 2024
PER CURIAM.
Consistent with the process set out in article V, section 9 of
the Florida Constitution, this opinion addresses the need to
increase or decrease the number of judges in fiscal year 2025-26
and certifies our “findings and recommendations concerning such
need” to the Florida Legislature. 1 We certify the need for 23
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 additional circuit court judgeships and 25 additional county court
judgeships, as identified in the appendix, as well as the need for two
additional district court judgeships on the Sixth District Court of
Appeal. We certify there is no need to decrease the number of
circuit court judgeships, county court judgeships, or district court
judgeships. However, we acknowledge excess judicial capacity in
the Second District Court of Appeal and recommend that the
Legislature address this excess capacity over time by reducing the
number of statutorily authorized judgeships based on attrition,
without requiring a judge to vacate his or her position involuntarily.
I. TRIAL COURT JUDICIAL WORKLOAD ASSESSMENT
Under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial
Administration 2.240, this Court assesses trial court judicial need
“based primarily on the application of case weights to circuit and
county court caseload statistics.” The rule requires the
Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability to
“review the trial court workload trends and case weights and
circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular session of the legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and recommendations concerning such need.
-2- consider adjustments no less than every five years.” As noted in
our certification opinion last year, this cyclical review was delayed
due to the impacts of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic and
jurisdictional threshold changes on the court data the Commission
relies on to determine case weight adjustments.2 After those
impacts subsided, the Court determined it was appropriate to
conduct a trial court workload assessment to ensure the case
weights—which had last been updated in 2016—accurately reflect
the current judicial workload.
To advance this effort, the Court directed the Commission to
“[m]anage and oversee all efforts needed to review, update, and
extend Florida’s trial court judicial workload model (case weights) to
address recent developments in statutory and case law and other
practices that impact judicial workload.” 3,4 The Office of the State
2. In re Certif. of Need for Add’l Judges, 375 So. 3d 204, 205 (Fla. 2023).
3. In re Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC22-36 (July 28, 2022).
4. This assessment builds upon our three previous efforts to evaluate trial court judicial workload. See Florida Delphi-based Weighted Caseload Project Final Report (Jan. 2000), https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/217995/file/DelphiF
-3- Courts Administrator (OSCA) contracted with the National Center
for State Courts (NCSC) to assist the Commission with the
assessment. The NCSC has conducted judicial workload
assessments in more than 30 states, 5 including two previous
Florida assessments that resulted in final reports issued in 2000
and 2016.6
A. Judicial Workload Assessment Methodology
The Florida courts system implemented a multi-phase
methodology to assess the judicial workload of trial courts. The
methodology was both quantitative and qualitative in nature and
structured to allow for maximum circuit and county court judge
ullReport.pdf; Commission on Trial Court Performance & Accountability, Judicial Resource Study Final Report (2007), https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/242776/file/ JRSReport_Introduction.pdf; Florida Judicial Workload Assessment Final Report (May 16, 2016), https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/778447/file/Florida% 20Judicial%20Workload%20Assessment%20Final%20Report%2020 16.pdf.
5. See Workload Assessment, National Center for State Courts, https://www.ncsc.org/consulting-and-research/areas-of- expertise/court-management-and-performance/workload- assessment (last visited Nov. 4, 2024).
6. See supra note 4.
-4- participation. 7 A detailed discussion of the judicial workload
assessment methodology follows.
In October 2022, OSCA contracted with the NCSC to conduct
the trial court workload assessment. An administrative order
constituted a Judicial Needs Assessment Committee (JNAC)
comprised of 23 judges representing every judicial circuit to oversee
and guide the assessment. 8 To help define the scope of the project
and ensure its completion, the JNAC reviewed and approved all the
methodological steps of the assessment. Specific project elements
the JNAC reviewed and approved included the determinations of a
standard judge day and a standard judge year, identification of
case- and non-case-related activities, delineation of case-type
categories, administration of the time study process, administration
of the quality adjustment process, assignment of final proposed
7. Senior judges and quasi-judicial officers, including magistrates, child support enforcement hearing officers, and civil traffic infraction hearing officers, also participated in the assessment. Capturing this workload helps document their important contribution to the resolution of cases and will inform the standards used to allocate quasi-judicial officers based on workload.
8. In re Trial Court Judicial Needs Assessment Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC22-77 (Oct. 20, 2022).
-5- case weights, and selection of a qualifying judicial threshold
methodology.
B. Time Study and Quality Adjustment Process
The workload assessment was performed in two stages: first, a
time study, and second, a quality adjustment process. 9 The formal
assessment process began with a one-month time study in which
circuit and county court judges recorded their time spent on case-
and non-case-related activities in a web-based application in five-
minute increments. 10 Statewide, 586 circuit court judges and 321
county court judges participated in the time study, a participation
rate of 99 percent.
The time study provided an empirically grounded basis for
analyzing judicial workload in each of Florida’s trial courts, as it
captured the actual amount of time judges spent on case- and non-
case-related activity each day, including time spent handling cases
9. See Florida Judicial Workload Assessment Final Report (June 2024), https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/2438568/file/Judicia l_Workload_Report_Final.pdf.
10. The time study occurred from September 18 through October 15, 2023.
-6- on and off the bench and any after-hours or weekend work.
Separately, OSCA provided counts of filings by case-type category
and court location. The NCSC used the time study and filings data
to calculate preliminary case weights based on the number of
minutes circuit and county court judges spent resolving cases
within each case-type category.
The quality adjustment process, like those used in previous
assessments, was designed to ensure that the final case weights for
circuit and county court judges incorporate adequate time for case
processing. This process included a statewide sufficiency of time
survey and a structured quality review of the preliminary case
weights by a set of experienced judges from across the state. The
quality adjustment process served an important role in the
workload assessment because the preliminary case weights derived
from the time study reflected data collected during a one-month
period only. This one-month period may not have captured the
variability that can occur throughout the year in certain case-type
categories or other factors affecting the time dedicated to handling
case-related activities during that period. Additionally, the
preliminary case weights did not account for whether sufficient time
-7- was available to deliver quality performance. The quality
adjustment process, therefore, provided an opportunity to refine the
weights so they accurately allocate sufficient time for effective case
processing.
All circuit and county court judges were asked to complete a
sufficiency of time survey in October 2023. The survey asked
judges about the amount of time currently available to perform
various case-related and non-case-related tasks. Specifically,
within certain case-type categories, judges were asked to identify
tasks, if any, where additional time would improve the “quality of
justice.” The survey enabled judges to freely comment on their
workload. Seventy-one percent of circuit court judges and seventy-
three percent of county court judges completed the survey.
The second component of the quality adjustment process was
a series of Delphi11 quality adjustment group sessions with circuit
and county court judges in April 2024. A Delphi process has been
11. The Delphi method is a structured iterative process for decision-making by a panel of experts; in this instance, judges. See Delphi Method, RAND Corporation, http://www.rand.org/topics/delphi-method.html (last visited Nov. 4, 2024).
-8- used by each of Florida’s three previous workload assessments.12
During the current assessment, six Delphi groups, facilitated by
NCSC staff and comprised of six to eight judges representing
different circuit sizes, met to review and assess the preliminary case
weights. Each group focused on one of the following divisions of
court: circuit criminal, circuit civil/probate, family, juvenile, county
criminal, or county civil. Thirty-seven judges participated, with
each judge experienced in the division of court that was the focus of
the group. Considering the preliminary case weights and the
results of the sufficiency of time survey, the groups identified any
case-type categories and activities where additional time may be
needed to enhance performance and recommended corresponding
adjustments to the preliminary case weights. The groups ultimately
recommended case weight changes for 25 percent of the case-type
categories.
Throughout the quality adjustment process, judges reported
that many case-type categories are more complex now than during
the previous assessment, thus requiring additional time. Examples
12. See supra note 4.
-9- of the areas where judges believed more time would improve the
overall quality of justice included the review and hearing of non-
dispositive pretrial motions in circuit and county criminal cases; the
review and hearing of dispositive pretrial motions in circuit civil
cases; the preparation of findings and orders related to trials and
final hearings in circuit family cases; and the hearing of cases
involving pro se litigants and interpreters. Judges also indicated,
among other things, that more time is needed for case management,
particularly in civil cases.13
The JNAC and the Commission, in April and May 2024,
respectively, approved the proposed case weights and the
recommendations advanced by the NCSC in its final report. This
Court adopted the proposed case weights in June 2024 and
directed OSCA staff to use the revised case weights starting with the
certification analysis for fiscal year 2025-26.
13. In 2021, this Court implemented differentiated case management requirements to promote the timely resolution of civil cases. See In re Comprehensive COVID-19 Emergency Measures for Florida Trial Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-23, Amend. 10 (Mar. 9, 2021); see also In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc., 386 So. 3d 497, 500 (Fla. 2024); In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc., 49 Fla. L. Weekly S289 (Dec. 5, 2024).
- 10 - II. TRIAL COURT CERTIFICATION OF JUDICIAL NEED
As described above, the Court continues to use a verified
objective weighted caseload methodology as a primary basis for
assessing judicial need for the trial courts. Total annual workload
is calculated by multiplying a three-year average of forecasted
filings for each case-type category by the corresponding case weight,
then summing the workload across all case-type categories. Each
court’s workload is then divided by a judge year value to determine
the total number of full-time equivalent judges needed to handle the
workload.
Judgeship needs applications submitted by the chief judges of
the judicial circuits supplement the objective data. Those
applications provide the chief judges with an opportunity to
describe how secondary factors 14 are affecting the courts within
their judicial circuits. 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 to not
14. Other factors that may be used in the determination of trial court judicial need are prescribed in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240(b)(1)(B) and (c).
- 11 - certify the need to decrease judgeships in situations in which the
objective weighted caseload methodology alone would indicate
excess judicial capacity.
We have examined case filing data, reviewed the secondary
factors supplied by the chief judges as part of their judgeship
needs applications, and used the final case weights from the
workload assessment to evaluate judicial need. Applying this
methodology and using an objective threshold for evaluating when
judicial workload indicates a need for more or fewer judges, this
Court certifies the need for 48 additional trial court judgeships
statewide—23 in circuit court and 25 in county court. Our
specific certifications for circuit and county court judges are set
out in the appendix accompanying this opinion. We recommend
no decrease in circuit court judgeships and no decrease in county
court judgeships.
To arrive at our certifications, the Court accounted for the
relative needs of each circuit and county court as reflected in the
weighted caseload methodology, but we have not certified the need
for the full complement of judges indicated by that methodology.
Instead, based on several considerations, the Court has chosen to
- 12 - adopt an approach that is more incremental but still reasonable
and fair.
The Court recognizes that funding new judgeships is a
significant investment, and we are mindful of the Legislature’s
challenge in addressing myriad state budget priorities with limited
resources. Further, the court system’s capacity to absorb
additional judges at one time is limited by factors such as
courthouse space, with expansion of courtrooms and chambers
subject to the availability of county funding. The Court also
recognizes that establishment of new judgeships results in
operational and potential fiscal impacts for justice-partner entities
such as the clerks of the circuit courts, state attorneys, and
public defenders. Finally, the court system requires some time to
establish workload trends using the newly adopted case weights.
It is for this same reason that the Court is necessarily cautious
about certifying the need to decrease judgeships, as we are not yet
able to determine trends that would indicate a sustained surplus
in judicial capacity.
The Court is committed to ensuring that the allocation of any
additional resources to the judicial branch budget results in
- 13 - operational outcomes that benefit users of the court system.
Although there is not an increase in forecasted filings, the revised
case weights resulting from the comprehensive trial court
workload assessment demonstrate that many cases have become
more complex and require additional judicial engagement and
time to resolve—warranting additional judges. If the Legislature
elects to fund the judgeships certified in this opinion as an initial
step in addressing the increased workload of circuit and county
courts, this Court will use the new case weights to monitor the
impact of the new resources and evaluate outstanding need in
subsequent certification opinions under article V, section 9 of the
Florida Constitution.
III. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CERTIFICATION OF JUDICIAL NEED
In furtherance of our constitutional obligation to determine the
State’s need for additional judges in fiscal year 2025-26, 15 this
opinion certifies the need for two additional district court
judgeships on the Sixth District Court of Appeal. In accordance
with Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration
15. See supra note 1.
- 14 - 2.240(b)(2), the Court continues to rely on a verified, objective
weighted caseload methodology—primarily based on the number of
cases disposed—as the main criterion for evaluating judicial need in
the district courts. This methodology also considers factors related
to workload, efficiency, effectiveness, and professionalism as
outlined in the rule.
A. Sixth District Court of Appeal Judicial Need
The Sixth District requested two additional judgeships. In its
request, the chief judge noted that the district court began its work
on January 1, 2023,16 with nearly 1,700 transferred cases from two
other district courts, and that filings in the district court continue
to grow. According to the chief judge, the current judge
complement is insufficient to keep pace with this growing workload.
Additionally, the district court is currently supported by a
temporarily assigned appellate judge from a neighboring district
court, an assignment that is not a long-term solution to the district
court’s workload challenges.
The chief judge of the Sixth District also noted that despite
16. See §§ 35.01, .044, Fla. Stat. (2023).
- 15 - high caseloads, the judges and staff have made every effort to
properly execute their responsibilities. But they do so knowing that
trying to absorb this increased workload limits the time available for
the consideration of each case and the writing of opinions. This
Court shares the concerns of the chief judge about the potential for
negative effects resulting from continued high workload and
strained judicial resources. We find the workload for the Sixth
District and other secondary factors cited in the request from the
chief judge persuasive.
B. District Court of Appeal Excess Judicial Capacity
As addressed in previous certifications of need for additional
judges, 17 the Court recognizes excess judicial capacity in the
Second District Court of Appeal based on the addition of a sixth
district, corresponding jurisdictional boundary changes in three
existing districts, and the policy decision not to require judges to
relocate. However, the Court continues to recommend that this
excess capacity be addressed over time through attrition; therefore,
17. See In re Redefinition of App. Dists. & Certif. of Need for Add’l App. Judges, 345 So. 3d 703, 706 (Fla. 2021); In re Certif. of Need for Add’l Judges, 353 So. 3d 565, 568 (Fla. 2022); In re Certif. of Need for Add’l Judges, 375 So. 3d at 205, 207-08.
- 16 - we do not certify the need to decrease any district court judgeships.
To address the estimated excess judicial capacity in the
Second District, this Court recommends that during the 2025
Regular Session the Legislature consider enacting legislation that
provides for a 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 Second
District, the number of authorized judges shall be reduced by one.
We recommend that eventually, after attrition, there be 13 judges
authorized for the Second District.18
The goal of the Court’s recommended approach, consistent
with previous opinions, is to address excess district court judicial
capacity without prematurely ending an existing judge’s judicial
career. This approach reflects the policy embodied in the 2022 law
18. The Court previously recommended that, after attrition, there be 12 judges authorized for the Second District. See Fla. SB 490 (2024) (died in Judiciary Committee) (proposed amendment to § 35.06, Fla. Stat.); Fla. HB 457 (died in Civil Justice Subcommittee) (same). After further analysis, the Court now finds that the appropriate target is 13 judges.
- 17 - establishing the Sixth District and realigning the jurisdictional
boundaries of the first, second, and fifth appellate districts. 19
In recent years, the Court had noted excess judicial capacity
within the First District Court of Appeal, based on the same factors
articulated above for the Second District. 20 However, the Court has
since determined it would be prudent to continue to monitor the
workload in the First District and recommend no additional
changes to judgeships on that court at this time. The weighted
workload per judge is higher in the First District than in the Second
District and is more closely aligned with the other four district
courts.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having conducted both a quantitative and qualitative
assessment of trial court judicial workload, we certify the need for
48 additional trial court judges, consisting of 23 in circuit court and
25 in county court, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. We
also recommend no decrease in circuit court and county court
19. See supra note 17.
20. See supra note 17.
- 18 - judgeships.
The recently completed judicial workload assessment was an
extensive effort involving the participation of more than 900 trial
court judges representing all 20 judicial circuits. The Court
extends its sincere thanks and appreciation to all who participated
in that assessment.
We certify the need for two additional judgeships in the Sixth
District. Finally, we recommend legislation to reduce the number of
statutorily authorized judgeships in 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, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Judges
- 19 - APPENDIX Trial Court Need
Number of Number of Circuit Circuit Court County County Court Judges Certified Judges Certified 1 1 Walton 1 2 0 N/A 0 3 0 N/A 0 Clay 1 4 1 Duval 2 Nassau 1 Hernando 1 Lake 1 5 3 Marion 1 Sumter 1 6 0 N/A 0 7 2 N/A 0 8 0 N/A 0 Orange 1 9 1 Osceola 1 10 2 Polk 1 11 0 Miami-Dade 7 12 1 Manatee 1 13 0 Hillsborough 1 14 1 Bay 1 15 2 Palm Beach 2 16 0 N/A 0 17 0 N/A 0 18 1 N/A 0 19 1 N/A 0 20 7 Lee 1 Circuit County 23 25 Total Total
- 20 -