Case Title: In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC22-1621

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2022-12-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
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 
 
- 2 - 
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. 
- 3 - 
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. 
 
- 4 - 
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. 
 
- 5 - 
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 
 
- 6 - 
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 
 
- 7 - 
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 
104 (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).  
 
- 8 - 
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. 
 
- 9 - 
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 
 
- 10 - 
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 
 
- 11 - 
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 
 
- 12 - 
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. 
 
- 13 - 
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 
 
- 14 - 
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