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

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC16-2127

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2016-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
______________ 
 
No. SC16-2127 
______________ 
 
 
IN RE:  CERTIFICATION OF NEED 
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES. 
 
[December 15, 2016] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
This opinion fulfills our constitutional obligation to determine the State’s 
need for additional judges in fiscal year 2017/2018 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. 
 
- 2 - 
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 twelve 
additional trial court judges and none in the district courts of appeal as discussed 
below.  We are also decertifying the need for six county court judgeships. 
TRIAL COURT JUDICIAL WORKLOAD STUDY 
This year, we adjusted the trial court case weights due to the completion of a 
comprehensive workload study in the trial courts.  This study validates trial court 
judges’ observations expressed for the last several years; namely, that although 
filings may be in decline, workload has increased due to case complexity and other 
judicial obligations contained in statute or rule.  A critical component of this effort 
was the time study that documented the work of over 900 trial court judges in all 
20 judicial circuits.  The time study documents the actual amount of time judges 
are spending on different cases and serves as the “what is” piece of judicial 
workload.  We especially agree with Recommendation One of the Judicial 
Workload Assessment Final Report (Final Workload Report), which notes that “the 
Florida Legislature should consider creating new judgeships in the circuit courts 
and county courts where the weighted caseload model shows a need for additional 
judicial resources.”2  We also accept Recommendations Two and Three of the 
Final Workload Report, which advocate for updating the case weights every five 
                                          
 
2.  Id. at 34. 
 
- 3 - 
years and conducting a secondary analysis of the impact of the factors enumerated 
in rule 2.240(b)(1)(B).3  We are considering Recommendations Four, Five, and 
Six, which address data related to problem-solving courts, conducting a workload 
assessment of staff attorneys,4 and evaluating the contribution and distribution of 
quasi-judicial resource officers,5 and have directed our staff to develop an 
implementation plan for how this might be accomplished, the cost, and a timeline 
for our consideration.  Resources permitting, implementation of these last three 
recommendations will take time to fully achieve.  Nonetheless, these supplemental 
resources are absolutely essential to the management of cases in the trial courts and 
the overall administration of justice in Florida. 
It has been nine years since the case weights were last updated in 2007, with 
major intervening events such as the mortgage foreclosure crisis occurring in the 
interim.  Further, while filings are generally in decline for most case types, we 
have received regular feedback from trial court judges throughout the state that 
cases have become more complex and take longer to dispose due to a variety of 
factors.  Thus, it became imperative that we conduct a trial court workload study to 
ensure that the case weights are an accurate reflection of judicial workload. 
                                          
 
3.  Id. at 34. 
 
4.  We have amended Recommendation Five to include an assessment of 
case managers in addition to staff attorneys. 
 
5.  Id. at 35. 
 
- 4 - 
Accordingly, in the fall of 2014, this Court directed the Office of the State 
Courts Administrator (OSCA) and the Commission on Trial Court Performance 
and Accountability’s Court Statistics and Workload Committee (Statistics and 
Workload Committee) to conduct a Judicial Workload Study designed to review 
and update the trial court case weights used in the judicial certification process.  
This study builds upon our two previous efforts to evaluate trial court judicial 
workload, the 1999 Delphi Workload Study6 and the 2006-07 Judicial Resource 
Study.7  The first study established case weights for the trial courts; the second 
study resulted in updated case weights for use in the trial court judicial certification 
process. 
In furtherance of this effort, the OSCA contracted with the National Center 
for State Courts (NCSC), which is nationally and internationally recognized for its 
expertise, to assist in evaluating judicial workload.  The NCSC has conducted 
                                          
 
6.  See Florida Delphi-based Weighted Caseload Project Final Report 
published in January 2000, available at 
http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/260/urlt/DelphiFullReport.pdf. 
 
7.  See Judicial Resource Study conducted in Fiscal Year 2006/2007, 
available at 
http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/260/urlt/JRSReport_final.pdf. 
 
 
- 5 - 
judicial workload assessments in 31 states to date,8 including the two previous 
Florida efforts cited above. 
The study also included senior judges and quasi-judicial officers such as 
magistrates, child support enforcement hearing officers, and civil traffic infraction 
hearing officers.  Quasi-judicial officers are essential to case processing as they 
assist judges with case dispositions.  The workload study captures the actual 
amount of time quasi-judicial officers are contributing to trial court workload and 
in which case types.  This type of workload information should prove very useful 
to the state courts system and Legislature as we continue to develop workload 
staffing models for those individuals who provide direct support to trial court 
judges. 
JUDICIAL WORKLOAD STUDY METHODOLOGY 
In order to properly evaluate trial court workload in Florida, a multi-phase 
methodology was developed.  By design, the methodology was both quantitative 
and qualitative in nature and structured to allow for maximum trial court 
participation.  The workload study was directed by an executive committee of 41 
judges representing every judicial circuit.  A one-month time study (quantitative 
component) involving all county court and circuit court judges along with all 
                                          
 
8.  See Workload Assessment, National Center for State Courts, available at 
http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Court-Management/Workload-and-Resource-
Assessment/~/link.aspx?_id=EDC38EAB25094528B6178E6B7FE72D81&_z=z. 
 
- 6 - 
quasi-judicial officers occurred in October 2015.  Site visits to eight judicial 
circuits, the distribution of a sufficiency of time survey to all trial court judges, and 
qualitative adjustment sessions comprise the qualitative aspect of the workload 
study.  A full discussion of the workload study methodology follows. 
In October 2014, the OSCA contracted with the NCSC to conduct a 
workload study of Florida’s trial courts.  Shortly thereafter, the 41-member judge 
committee, consisting of one circuit court judge and one county court judge from 
each circuit nominated by their respective chief judges, provided executive 
direction to the study.  The committee, known as the Judicial Needs Assessment 
Committee (JNAC), was chaired by The Honorable Paul Alessandroni, County 
Court Judge, Charlotte County, who also serves as chair of the Court Statistics and 
Workload Committee.  The JNAC reviewed and approved all of the 
methodological steps of the workload study including: determination of a standard 
judge day, determination of a standard judge year, identification of case and non-
case related activities, delineation of case type categories, administration of time 
study process and results, implementation of qualitative adjustment process and 
results, assignment of final case weights, along with the establishment of a 
qualifying threshold methodology, and completion of a secondary workload factor 
analysis.  In addition, the JNAC approved the workload assessment of senior 
judges and quasi-judicial officers such as magistrates, child support enforcement 
 
- 7 - 
hearing officers, and civil traffic infraction hearing officers.  The OSCA served as 
staff to the JNAC. 
The JNAC provided regular communication about the intent, scope, and 
progress of the workload study to the chief judges and all trial court judges via 
e-mail, in-person presentations at quarterly judicial leadership meetings, and 
presentations by the JNAC chair and NCSC staff at the 2015 annual circuit court 
judges’ and county court judges’ education programs.  To keep the legislative 
branch apprised of the JNAC’s work, the Office of Program Policy and 
Government Accountability (OPPAGA) was noticed on all meetings and provided 
copies of all meeting materials.  Representatives from OPPAGA attended all 
JNAC and qualitative adjustment meetings. 
TIME STUDY AND QUALITY ADJUSTMENT PROCESS 
The workload assessment was conducted in two phases: a time study and a 
quality adjustment process.  A one-month time study9 was conducted in which all 
circuit court judges, county court judges, senior judges, magistrates, child support 
enforcement hearing officers, and civil traffic infraction hearing officers were 
asked to participate.  Judges and quasi-judicial officers were asked to record their 
time in five-minute increments for all case and non-case related activity.  
Statewide, 582 circuit court judges and 309 county court judges participated in the 
                                          
 
9.  The time study occurred from September 28 through October 25, 2015. 
 
- 8 - 
time study, for a participation rate of 97 percent.  In addition, 83 senior judges, 118 
magistrates, and 150 hearing officers tracked their time, for a participation rate of 
96 percent.  The inclusion of senior judges and quasi-judicial officers in the time 
study makes this the most comprehensive judicial workload study ever conducted 
in Florida. 
As noted in the Final Workload Report, the time study is empirically based 
in that it captures the actual amount of time judges spend on case and non-case 
related activity each day, “including night and weekend work associated with 
signing warrants and acting as a ‘duty’ judge, hearing preliminary matters in 
criminal, juvenile delinquency, juvenile dependency, and Orders for Protection 
Against Violence cases.”10  All judges were asked to record the time spent hearing 
cases at each court level such as county court judges hearing cases in circuit court.  
Using a web-based tool developed by the NCSC, all participants uploaded their 
time each day using the case and non-case related categories approved by the 
JNAC.  To enhance their experience and maximize data quality, participants were 
encouraged to view an interactive training module.  Project staff from the NCSC 
were also available to provide technical assistance via the telephone or e-mail for 
the entirety of the time study.  A preliminary set of case weights was identified as a 
                                          
 
10.  See Florida Judicial Workload Assessment Final Report at 8, May 16, 
2016, available at http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/documents/2016-
NCSC-Florida-Workload-Study.pdf. 
 
 
- 9 - 
result of the time study.  Those preliminary weights were then used by subject 
matter experts during the qualitative adjustment process.11 
This second key step in the workload assessment, the qualitative adjustment 
process, was designed to ensure that the final case weights allow sufficient time for 
efficient and effective case processing.  The qualitative adjustment process 
included: (1) a statewide sufficiency of time survey that asked judges about the 
amount of time currently available to perform various case-related and non-case-
related tasks; (2) site visits to eight judicial circuits by the JNAC chair, NCSC and 
OSCA staff; and (3) a structured quality review of the case weights by a set of 
subject matter expert groups comprised of experienced judges from across the state 
of Florida.  The qualitative adjustment documents “what should be,” and is a very 
important step in the workload study.  Over the last several years, this Court has 
repeatedly heard from chief judges, as well as circuit court judges and county court 
judges from across the state, that although filings are generally down in nearly all 
case types, their workload has grown due to a variety of factors.  Among those 
factors cited are increases in case complexity, the need to document considerably 
more findings of fact, as well as expanding and more extensive statutory and rule 
requirements. 
                                          
 
11.  See Delphi Method, RAND Corporation, available at 
http://www.rand.org/topics/delphi-method.html. 
 
- 10 - 
The sufficiency of time survey was designed to receive judicial feedback on 
concerns related to current practice.  Specifically, within certain case types, judges 
were asked to identify particular tasks, if any, where additional time would 
improve the quality of justice.12  The survey solicited feedback on case and non-
case related work and provided judges with the opportunity to freely comment on 
their workload, including time required on canvassing boards.13  Fifty-one percent 
of circuit court judges and 47 percent of county court judges completed the 
survey.14  As cited in the final workload study report, a number of areas were 
identified by the judges as benefiting from additional time.  In circuit criminal 
cases, pretrial motions and trials were frequently mentioned as areas where more 
time would improve the quality of justice.  “In civil cases, circuit court judges 
consistently selected dispositive pretrial motions, including conducting hearings 
and preparing findings and orders, and pretrial and scheduling conferences.”15  “In 
family law cases, circuit court judges indicated that cases would benefit from 
additional time to conduct trials and final hearings and to prepare findings and 
                                          
 
12.  See Florida Judicial Workload Assessment Final Report at 13, available 
at http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/documents/2016-NCSC-Florida-
Workload-Study.pdf. 
 
 
13.  Id. 
 
14.  Id. 
 
15.  Id. 
 
 
- 11 - 
orders related to trials and motions for modification.”16  “Circuit court judges also 
expressed a need to devote more time to legal research.  County court judges cited 
the impact of cases involving self-represented litigants, pretrial motions in criminal 
cases, criminal trials, and preparing findings and orders in civil cases.”17 
Another element of the qualitative adjustment process included site visits to 
multiple circuits.  In December 2015, the JNAC chair and staff from the NCSC and 
OSCA visited eight judicial circuits18 to receive in-person judicial feedback on 
factors that judges encounter in processing their cases.  The circuits visited 
represent small, medium, large, and extra-large courts.  Some of the circuits visited 
comprise a single county (e.g., Seventeenth Judicial Circuit), whereas others are 
multi-county (e.g., Fourteenth Judicial Circuit).  During the site visits, structured 
interviews were conducted with the chief judge, trial court administrator, and 
judges from every division and level of court.  The interview process allowed staff 
to document judicial concerns about case processing practices and procedures, as 
well as receive feedback on resource constraints that may be affecting judicial 
effectiveness.  Several key themes emerged from the site visits, including the 
                                          
 
16.  Id. 
 
17.  Id. 
 
18.  Judicial circuits visited: First (Pensacola), Fourth (Jacksonville), Fifth 
(Ocala), Eighth (Gainesville), Tenth (Lakeland), Fourteenth (Panama City), 
Fifteenth (West Palm Beach), and Seventeenth (Ft. Lauderdale). 
 
- 12 - 
critical nature of staff attorneys for legal research and case managers for case 
processing, along with a general and repeated assessment that many cases are 
becoming more complex. 
As noted above, judges view staff attorneys as an essential supplemental 
resource to effective case processing.  One judge quoted in the final report notes 
that “staff attorneys are critical for motion practice issues, both criminal and civil.”  
Also noted in the final workload report, “staff attorneys perform many research, 
writing, and case management tasks which enhance both the efficiency and quality 
of judicial decision-making.”19  Other essential tasks performed by staff attorneys 
documented in the final workload report include work on “motions for post-
conviction relief, drafting orders, researching legal issues related to motions, 
assisting with dismissals for lack of prosecution, monitoring filings in probate and 
guardianship cases, and acting as ‘gatekeepers’ to prevent ex parte 
communications.”20  Judges in several jurisdictions reported long delays in 
accessing the services of staff attorneys for research assignments.  These delays 
have caused judges to limit their own research requests.  Also mentioned in the 
Final Workload Report, “county court judges have limited access to staff attorneys 
                                          
 
19.  See Workload Final Report at 14, available at 
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/documents/2016-NCSC-Florida-
Workload-Study.pdf. 
 
20.  Id. 
 
 
- 13 - 
but believe they would benefit from research on more complex cases such as 
insurance cases.”21 
Case managers were also cited by the judges as being an invaluable 
resource.  The site visits affirm the consistent judicial feedback this Court has 
received about the value of case managers, both from experienced family law 
judges and those judges presiding over real property cases during the mortgage 
foreclosure crisis.  As noted in the Final Workload Report, “judges rely on case 
managers to monitor cases for activity and identify cases that are not advancing so 
that appropriate action can be taken.”22  Absent case managers, judges or their staff 
attorneys must perform these functions themselves, or, alternatively, if they are too 
busy with the actual adjudication component, cases may take longer to dispose.  
Nearly all circuit court judges and county court judges interviewed reported a need 
for additional case managers.  Their observations are consistent with the narrative 
in our Legislative Budget Requests over the last several years where we have 
documented in our requests this need for funding for additional case managers. 
Another critical finding of the site visits is that cases are becoming 
increasingly complex.  Both circuit court judges and county court judges noted that 
case complexity is a challenge.  In county court, insurance cases are being 
                                          
 
21.  Id. 
 
22.  Id. 
 
 
- 14 - 
aggressively litigated.  Often these cases require legal research and compare to 
circuit court cases in their complexity.23  As cited in the Final Workload Report, 
“in family and juvenile cases filed in circuit court, the number of issues requiring 
specific findings of fact has increased, the extra judicial time spent addressing 
these issues in orders can increase stability for families by reducing the number of 
cases overturned on appeal.”24  “In circuit civil cases, judges observed that the 
volume of discovery requested has increased and cases with larger amounts in 
controversy often involve more hearings.”25  Also cited in the Final Workload 
Report, “in circuit criminal cases, judges report that tougher mandatory minimum 
sentences have increased the amount of motion practice as well as trial rates.”26 
In addition to the sufficiency of time survey and site visits, NCSC staff also 
facilitated a series of Delphi27 qualitative adjustment group sessions with circuit 
court judges and county court judges in February 2016.  Six Delphi groups of 
between eight and thirteen judges representing different circuit sizes met to review 
and adjust the preliminary case weights.  A total of 65 experienced judges (three or 
                                          
 
23.  Id. 
 
24.  Id. at 15. 
 
25.  Id. 
 
26.  Id. 
 
27.  The Delphi method is a structured iterative process for decision-making 
by a panel of experts; in this instance, judges. 
 
- 15 - 
more years of judicial experience) participated.  The groups focused on a particular 
division of court including circuit civil, circuit criminal, family and juvenile, 
probate, county criminal, and county civil.28  An overview of the process used to 
create the preliminary weights and a review of the sufficiency of time survey 
results were provided by NCSC staff.29  Each group participated in a systematic 
review of the preliminary case weights using a modified Delphi process.30 
This consensus-based review of the case weights was “designed to ensure 
that all recommended adjustments were reasonable and would produce specific 
benefits such as improvements in public safety, cost savings, increases in 
procedural justice, and improved compliance with court orders.”31 
Several of the family and civil Delphi sessions recommended increasing the 
time devoted to pretrial case management, the rationale being that time spent at the 
beginning of a case will result in earlier disposition times in some cases and 
narrow the issues for trial in others.  As mentioned in the Final Workload Report, 
“the family and juvenile groups recommended allocating additional time to assess 
the needs of children and families to identify services and resources, allow 
                                          
 
28.  Id. 
 
29.  Id. 
 
30.  Id. 
 
31.  Id. at 15. 
 
- 16 - 
sufficient time for self-represented litigants to understand the legal process, and to 
write more detailed findings and orders that thoroughly address all statutory 
requirements.”32  In criminal cases, the Delphi groups “recommended adding time 
for legal research, longer plea colloquies, and contested hearings.”33 
The county court Delphi groups recommended additional time for legal 
research and writing in criminal cases, complex insurance cases, criminal traffic 
cases involving serious bodily injury or fatalities, and in post-judgment motions 
related to eviction cases.34  Appendix C of the Final Workload Report provides a 
full description and detailed rationales for all recommended adjustments. 
The JNAC met on March 3, 2016, to review the entire workload 
methodology, including the major findings and recommendations.  Three factors 
contribute to the calculation of judicial need in the weighted caseload model: 
filings, case weights, and judge year value.35  The JNAC adopted the judge year 
value of 215 days, which is the number of days each year that judges are available 
to work, excluding weekends, holidays, vacation, and sick leave.36  According to 
                                          
 
32.  Id. at 15-16. 
 
33.  Id. at 16. 
 
34.  Id. 
 
35.  Id. at 18. 
 
 
36.  Id. 
 
- 17 - 
the NCSC, the judge year in 25 other states ranges from 200 to 226 days.  Florida’s 
judge year of 215 days is the median of the 25 states that have conducted judicial 
workload assessments.  The JNAC also adopted the judge day value, which 
represents the amount of time each judge has available for case-related work 
during each workday.37  The total workday for circuit court judges is eight and 
one-half hours and includes six hours of case-related work, one and one-half hours 
of non-case related work including administration and travel, and one hour for 
lunch.  The total workday for county court judges is eight and one-half hours and 
includes five hours for case related work on county court cases, one hour for case 
related work on circuit court cases, one and one-half hours on non-case related 
work, and one hour for lunch.38 
The JNAC adopted new recommendations proposed by the NCSC not 
previously used by the Court in its evaluation of trial court workload, including a 
chief judge adjustment for time spent by chief judges performing administrative 
matters39 and time spent by county court judges serving on county election 
                                          
 
37.  Id. at 19. 
 
38.  Id. 
 
39.  Id. at 20. 
 
 
 
- 18 - 
canvassing boards.40  The JNAC also accepted all quality adjustments to the 
preliminary case weights.  As noted in the final workload report, “in the aggregate, 
the Delphi adjustments result in a combined increase in circuit and county court 
judicial workload of about two percent.”41  Exhibit 6 located on page 17 of the 
Final Workload Report illustrates the final cases weights adopted by the JNAC. 
The NCSC recommended, and the JNAC adopted, a new threshold 
methodology for when a circuit or county would qualify for a new judgeship.  As 
discussed in the Final Workload Report, “to provide a common yardstick for 
jurisdictions of all sizes and to assist in directing additional judicial resources to 
the jurisdictions with the greatest relative need, a majority of the JNAC voted to 
adopt the following rules: 
1. 
In any court where the ratio of judicial need to existing 
positions is greater than 1.10, additional judicial positions 
should be allocated to bring the ratio below 1.10. 
 
2. 
In any court where the ratio of judicial need to existing 
positions is between 1.10 and 0.90, no change to the number of 
judicial positions is recommended. 
 
                                          
 
40.  Id. 
 
41.  Id. at 16. 
 
 
- 19 - 
3. 
In any court where the ratio of judicial need to existing 
positions is below 0.90, judicial positions should be subtracted 
until the ratio is above 0.90, unless subtracting positions brings 
the ratio above 1.10.”42 
 
As noted in the Final Workload Report, “in the First Judicial Circuit, 24 
judges are currently handling the work of 27.95 judges or 1.16 full time equivalent 
(FTE) per judge.  Adding a single judge would bring the ratio to 1.12 FTE, still in 
excess of 1.10.  Adding two judges would reduce the ratio to 1.08, below the 1.10 
threshold.”43  This recommendation is significantly more rigorous and conservative 
than our previous 0.50 threshold.  In fact, this new threshold requires that all 
judges within a county or circuit court collectively absorb 10 percent additional 
workload before qualifying for a new judgeship.  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 being considered for a new judgeship. 
In addition to the new workload threshold, the JNAC adopted a secondary 
analysis recommendation designed to identify other workload factors present in a 
county or circuit that may affect judicial workload.  Several additional factors such 
as jury trials, foreign language interpretations, and geographic size of a circuit are 
currently listed in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240(b)(1)(B).  In 
                                          
 
 
42.  Id. at 26. 
 
43.  Id. 
 
- 20 - 
addition to those currently cited in the rule, the JNAC recommended consideration 
of other factors such as the existence of alternative problem-solving courts, 
prosecutor and law enforcement practices, “the location of correctional facilities, 
hospitals, universities, the quality and scope of court technology, ensuring access 
to justice, and variations in the amount of judicial work associated with election 
canvassing boards.”44 
The Judicial Workload Study was significant not only for documenting the 
work of trial court judges, but also for capturing the contributions of senior judges, 
as well as quasi-judicial officers such as magistrates, child support enforcement 
hearing officers, and civil traffic infraction hearing officers.  Each of these groups 
participated in the time study, with an overall participation rate of 96 percent.  The 
work of these quasi-judicial officers is critical to the overall management of court 
workload.  This study and its data provide significant insight as to the use of quasi-
judicial officers and their contribution to judicial workload.  It will prove 
invaluable in future years as we attempt to establish workload staffing models 
across circuits. 
As described in the Final Workload Report, “[s]enior judges are retired 
judges who have agreed to accept assignments to temporary judicial duty to fill-in 
                                          
 
44.  Id. at 27. 
 
 
- 21 - 
for long-term judicial absences (e.g., illness or death) and to assistance with excess 
workload (e.g., Foreclosure cases).”45 
“Magistrates are judicial officers appointed by the court to assist the work of 
Circuit court judges.  Magistrates hold formal court hearings providing 
recommendations to judges in the areas of family law, support enforcement, 
juvenile dependency, mental health, and guardianship.”46 
“Child Support Enforcement Hearing Officers are attorneys who have been 
appointed by administrative order of the court.  The hearing officers are typically 
used in family court to take testimony and recommend decisions in cases involving 
the establishment, enforcement, and/or modification of child support as well as 
paternity matters.”47 
“Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officers are contractual employees (also 
attorneys) that serve on a part-time basis to provide back-up to judges by hearing 
and making decisions in non-criminal traffic matters.  These hearing officers 
typically serve in county court, and the decisions they make can be appealed to a 
regular sitting judge.”48 
                                          
 
45.  Id. at 28. 
 
46.  Id. at 27. 
 
47.  Id. at 28. 
 
48.  Id. 
 
- 22 - 
As documented in the Final Workload Report, the time study revealed that 
“senior judges perform more than 460,000 minutes of work on Real Property cases 
each year, suggesting that some jurisdictions use senior judges to preside over 
specialty foreclosure dockets.”49  “Magistrates perform some of the family law 
work accompanying dissolution, paternity, other domestic relations, juvenile 
dependency cases, as well as commitment and guardianship cases.  Hearing 
officers handle 72 percent of the total judicial work associated with civil traffic 
infractions and 78 percent of work on child support cases.”50  Exhibit 14c of the 
Final Workload Report converts the workload of quasi-judicial officers into case 
weights and provides a more complete picture of the overall judicial resources 
devoted to each type of case.51  Without the availability of these supplemental 
judicial resources, it is anticipated that case processing times would be 
significantly longer. 
JUDICIAL WORKLOAD STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS 
The Court reviewed the Judicial Workload Study recommendations and has 
adopted Recommendations One, Two, and Three, which address the new case 
weights, a periodic review of the case weights, and consideration of secondary 
                                          
 
49.  Id. 
 
50.  Id. 
 
51.  Id. at 31. 
 
 
- 23 - 
factors that may be impacting judicial workload.52  The workload study used 
calendar year data for 2012, 2013, and 2014.  However, during this analysis we 
used projected case filings through fiscal year 2017/2018 in accordance with rule 
2.240(b)(1)(A)(i) and rule 2.240(b)(1)(A)(ii).  Using the objective threshold 
standard and judgeship requests submitted from the lower courts, we have 
examined case filing and disposition data, conducted a secondary analysis of 
judicial workload indicators, and used the final adjusted case weights from the 
workload study.  We have also incorporated an allowance for administrative time 
spent by chief judges, county court judge time spent on county election canvassing 
boards, and the new, more rigorous, threshold for qualifying for a new judgeship.  
Applying this methodology, this Court certifies the need for twelve judgeships 
statewide, four in circuit court and eight in county court.  See Appendix.  We are 
also decertifying six county court judgeships.  See Appendix. 
CIRCUIT COURT WORKLOAD 
A key finding of the Judicial Workload Study is validation of the long-held 
belief of many trial court judges that their workload has increased over the last 
several years.  The time study and quality review process associated with the case 
weight development documents that cases are taking longer to dispose due to a 
variety of factors as previously mentioned.  This finding is essential and illustrates 
                                          
 
52.  Id. at 34. 
 
- 24 - 
the necessity for a regular review of the judicial case weights (i.e., every five 
years) via a time study.  Moreover, the rigorous threshold recommended by the 
JNAC and adopted by this Court reflects the fact that, notwithstanding that cases 
are more complex and take longer to dispose, filings across all court divisions 
remain in decline.  Thus, the 41 trial court judges who provided executive direction 
to the Judicial Workload Study recommended, and we agree, that all judges within 
a circuit are obligated to help each other with their respective workloads, thereby 
ensuring that the full measure of judicial capacity is applied to all judicial 
workload.  This new threshold emphasizes the collective nature of addressing 
judicial workload by requiring judges to work together to fully leverage all 
available judicial resources.  We adopt this recommendation and encourage all trial 
court judges to embrace its inherent intent as it is prudent, reasonable, and fair. 
In their judicial needs applications, the chief judges identified a number of 
factors that continue to impact judicial workload in the circuit courts.  For 
example, the continued expansion and proliferation of problem solving courts (e.g., 
Adult Drug Court, Veterans’ Courts, Mental Health Courts) contribute 
significantly to judicial workload as they are labor intensive, requiring multiple 
hearings for each defendant, typically over a lengthy period of time.  Indeed, 
Recommendation Four of the Final Workload Report indicates that we adopt a data 
reporting mechanism for problem-solving courts to better assess the workload 
 
- 25 - 
associated with these types of cases.  The Court agrees with this recommendation 
and is committed to developing a system that documents this workload in Florida. 
The chief judges have also noted that the number and frequency of court-
interpreting events impact case disposition times.  Florida is an ethnically and 
culturally diverse state with thousands of non-English speaking residents who 
access our courts each year, and 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 
services53 and also by implementing video remote interpreting services across 
circuits using credentialed employees and contractors.  Moreover, we are very 
encouraged by the preliminary results of our Virtual Remote Interpreting pilot 
program and have identified several key advantages to its possible expansion, 
including: (1) containing the need for additional full-time equivalent positions and 
contractual dollars; (2) providing for the use of credentialed interpreters to conduct 
interpretations; (3) providing greater scheduling flexibility for our judges; and 
(4) leveraging court-interpreting resources across judicial circuits. 
The application of this technology demonstrates the court system’s 
commitment to contain costs, innovate, and improve service delivery within this 
                                          
 
53.  See In re Amends. to Fla. Rules for Certification & Regulation of 
Spoken Language Court Interpreters, 176 So. 3d 256, 257 (Fla. 2015). 
 
- 26 - 
due process element.  Similar efforts are occurring using software applications 
such as Open Court and the Integrated Case Management System developed by the 
Eighth Judicial Circuit.  Both of these software platforms are open source and have 
tremendous potential for cost containment and the avoidance of vendor lock-in 
issues associated with the purchase of specialized technology.  We encourage the 
Legislature to favorably consider our Legislative Budget Request for technology as 
it demonstrates the judicial branch’s commitment to apply technology in our 
service delivery staffing models, thereby minimizing our requests for additional 
full-time equivalent positions. 
The chief judges have also advised us of a notable need for more staff 
attorneys, primarily in circuit court and to a lesser extent in county court.  This 
observation was verified during the site visits to eight judicial circuits during the 
workload study.  There is significant workload associated with postconviction 
relief motions in circuit criminal divisions.  Similarly, complex legal issues need to 
be researched in circuit civil divisions.  Much of this preliminary research is more 
efficiently performed by staff attorneys who provide direct legal support to judges. 
The same rationale holds true for our case management positions.  Circuit 
court judges repeatedly advised both NCSC members and our staff during the 
workload study site visits how invaluable case managers are to keeping dockets 
current.  Many of these positions are assigned to provide support in family law, 
 
- 27 - 
problem solving courts, and mortgage foreclosure cases, and are essential to 
ensuring that all documents and related paperwork are filed and complete so judges 
can move cases to disposition.  The absence of these critical support positions 
often leads to case processing delays. 
On a related matter, chief judges have advised us that because in-court 
administrative staff has either been 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 a good use of judicial 
time and supports our contention that circuit court judges need additional 
administrative/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, we remain concerned that 
the one-year sit-out provision for retiring judges is impacting the court system’s 
ability to secure senior judges in different regions throughout the state.  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. 
 
- 28 - 
In consideration of the chief judges’ requests and by applying the new case 
weights and secondary factors to circuit court workload, we certify the need for 
one circuit court judgeship in the Fifth Judicial Circuit and three circuit court 
judgeships in the Ninth Judicial Circuit. 
COUNTY COURT WORKLOAD 
One of the key findings of the Final Workload Study is the documentation of 
circuit court work performed by county court judges.  It is significant and 
widespread throughout the state and is testimony to county court judges making 
prominent contributions to assisting with the overall workload within a circuit.  In 
fact, their contribution in circuit court is now codified into the standard judge day 
for county court judges, which allocates one hour each day for presiding over 
circuit court matters. 
Another key finding of the Final Workload Study is the time spent by county 
court judges on election canvassing boards.  This work can be considerable, 
especially during gubernatorial and presidential election years.  This is a much 
needed improvement to our workload methodology. 
During the site visits, two key themes emerged in staff discussion with the 
county court judges.  First, personal injury protection insurance cases, commonly 
referred to as PIP cases, are taking an ever-increasing amount of judicial time.  
Frequently, they are heavily litigated and often result in a jury trial, which requires 
 
- 29 - 
considerable judicial time.  Indeed, some of the county court judges recommend 
that we modify our existing case types by creating a separate case type and weight 
for these types of cases for future workload assessments.  We take that 
recommendation under advisement.  Second, many of the county court judges 
interviewed indicated an increasing need for access to staff attorney assistance as 
civil cases in county court are becoming more complex, requiring considerable 
legal research and analysis. 
The Final Workload Study revealed a positive need for eight county court 
judges disbursed over six counties with a demonstrable need.  However, the study 
also revealed a negative net need of 14 county court judges disbursed over nine 
counties, meaning there is insufficient workload for the current number of judges 
in those counties.  Our own analysis, using projected filings data, supports the 
original findings of the workload study; namely, that there is a positive need for 
additional county court judges in some counties and a surplus of county court 
judges in other counties.  However, to better assess whether we should decertify 
any of these county court judgeships, we conducted an analysis of secondary 
factors identified by the chief judge of each affected county, via the judicial needs 
application, that might militate against decertification, such as geography, number 
of branch courthouses, access to justice concerns, and others factors listed in the 
 
- 30 - 
Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.54  Accordingly, we are certifying the 
need for one additional county court judgeship each in Citrus County, Flagler 
County, Palm Beach County, Broward County, and Lee County, and three 
additional county court judgeships in Hillsborough County. 
We are also decertifying county court judgeships in the following counties: 
one county court judgeship in Pasco County, one county court judgeship in Putnam 
County, one county court judgeship in Monroe County, one county court judgeship 
in Brevard County, one county court judgeship in Charlotte County, and one 
county court judgeship in Collier County.  Over the next twelve months, we will be 
closely monitoring the judicial workload of several other counties55 that 
demonstrate a negative need, but also identified supplemental factors recognized 
both in rule and by the NCSC’s recommended methodology which militate against 
decertification, to determine whether additional decertifications should occur in 
next year’s certification of need opinion.  The Court does not take this step 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. 
                                          
 
54.  See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.240(b)(1)(B). 
 
55.  Alachua, Brevard, Escambia, Leon, Monroe, Pasco, and Polk counties. 
 
- 31 - 
SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS 
This Court remains concerned about the ability to meet the needs of self-
represented litigants and the impact a lack of representation has on access to justice 
and the administration of the court system.  Indeed, many of the trial court judges 
interviewed during the Final Workload Study commented on the impact of self-
represented litigants in their courtrooms.  Their impact was also cited by the chief 
judges in their judicial needs applications.  Self-represented litigants are frequently 
unprepared for the rigors of presenting evidence, following rules of procedure, and 
generally representing themselves in court, often creating additional work for trial 
judges.  Increased judicial involvement in cases where one or more parties self-
represent is essential to assure fair and impartial access to courts, but entails 
lengthier hearings, rescheduled hearings, and court delay.  The impact of case 
processing to ensure self-represented litigants have access to justice occurs in both 
circuit court and county court and was affirmed by the Final Workload Study.  To 
better evaluate this need and impact separate and apart from the Final Workload 
Study, this Court appointed a Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice, 
which is discussed below. 
FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ACCESS TO CIVIL JUSTICE 
The Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice was created via 
administrative order on November 14, 2014.  The Commission was “established to 
 
- 32 - 
study the remaining unmet civil legal needs of disadvantaged, low income, and 
moderate income Floridians.  The Commission is charged with considering 
Florida’s legal assistance delivery system as a whole, including but not limited to 
staffed legal aid programs, resources and support for self-represented litigants, 
limited scope representation, pro bono services, innovative technology solutions, 
and other models and potential innovations.”56 
Over the last two years, the Commission and its committees have met 
regularly.  To address the Commission’s charges, the Chief Justice initially created 
five subcommittees: Outreach, Access to and Delivery of Legal Services, 
Continuum of Services, Technology, and Funding.  Three projects emanating from 
these committees, which have generated considerable optimism, are the 
implementation of a gateway portal, the expanded use of emeritus attorneys, and 
the adoption of a cy pres57 rule or statute.58  A fourth project under development 
                                          
 
56.  See In re: Fla. Comm’n on Access to Civil Justice, Fla. Admin. Order 
No. AOSC14-65 (Fla. Nov. 24, 2014). 
 
57.  The cy pres doctrine permits a court to award any unallocated, 
unclaimed, or undeliverable funds from a class action settlement or judgment to a 
non-profit organization.  See “Commission on Access to Civil Justice Submits 
Final Report,” Full Court Press, Summer 2016 Issue, Office of the State Courts 
Administrator, available at 
http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/295/urlt/001186-
Summer2016_FCP.pdf. 
 
58.  For a more thorough discussion of these projects, see id. 
 
 
- 33 - 
and initiated by the Judicial Management Council, called Do-It-Yourself Florida, 
provides for automated interviews designed to assist self-represented litigants with 
creating their own petitions which, once complete, can then be submitted through 
the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal.  The original term of the Commission was 
extended until September 30, 2016.59  The final report for the Commission’s initial 
term is available through this Court’s website.60 
On October 10, 2016, the Court issued an administrative order61 re-
establishing the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice as a standing 
commission.  In our press release, we note that the permanent Commission will 
“study the remaining unmet civil legal needs of disadvantaged, low income and 
moderate income Floridians.”  The administrative order directs the Commission to 
examine the issue from all perspectives and not be limited to the viewpoint of any 
one institution.  The Commission is to consider staffed legal aid programs, 
resources designed to help people representing themselves, legal advice 
specifically limited to a single issue in a case, pro bono services, technology 
                                          
 
59.  See In re: Fla. Comm’n on Access to Civil Justice, Fla. Admin. Order 
No. AOSC16-27 (Fla. June 13, 2016). 
 
60.  See Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice Final Report 
(June 30, 2016), available at http://www.flaccesstojustice.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/ATJ-Final-Report-Court-06302016-ADA.pdf. 
 
61.  See In re: Fla. Comm’n on Access to Civil Justice, Fla. Admin. Order 
No. AOSC16-71 (Fla. Oct. 10, 2016). 
 
- 34 - 
solutions, and other models and potential innovations.  It is our long-term 
aspiration that improvements to court access will have a positive impact on our 
future need for additional judicial resources. 
DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL 
In September 2014, the Commission on District Court of Appeal 
Performance and Accountability (DCA Commission) began the process of 
reviewing relative case weights for district court judges, as directed in In re 
Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability, Fla. 
Admin. Order No. SC14-41 (Fla. July 2, 2014).  The Supreme Court charged the 
DCA Commission with reviewing “workload trends of the district courts, 
specifically relative case weights for judicial workload as required by rule 
2.240(b)(2)(B)(ii), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.”  Previous reviews by 
the DCA Commission occurred initially in 2006, and subsequently in 2009.  The 
2009 review resulted in a modifier for the First District Court of Appeal to address 
workload issues in the category of “Notice of Appeal – Administrative (Other).”62  
After studying the issue, the DCA Commission recommended revising the relative 
case weights, removing the modifier for the First District Court of Appeal, and 
reviewing the weighted case disposition threshold of 280 cases per judge. 
                                          
 
62.  “Notice of Appeal – Administrative (Other)” is defined as any appeal 
from an administrative agency other than an unemployment appeal from the 
Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission. 
 
- 35 - 
At the Court’s direction, the DCA Commission subsequently reviewed both 
the weighted case disposition threshold methodology established in 2005 and 
current data applied to the methodology, and recommended that the threshold be 
revised to 315 cases per judge.  Additionally, the commission recommended that a 
review process for the threshold be established, following a four-year cycle similar 
to that of the relative case weights, and that rule 2.240(b)(2)(B) be amended to 
remove the specific threshold number of 280 and provide for a four-year review 
cycle.  The Court approved the revised relative case weights, removal of the 
modifier, the revised weighted case disposition threshold, and the four-year review 
cycle.  Rule 2.240(b)(2)(B) was also amended to remove the specific threshold 
number and provide for the review cycle.  We are not certifying a need for 
additional district court judges during this certification cycle, as our review, 
applying the updated relative case weights methodology, indicates adequate 
resources. 
Using the updated relative case weights and applying the new case 
disposition threshold of 315 cases per judge, the Court finds that the Third District 
Court of Appeal may be overstaffed by one judge.  We also observe that, unlike the 
other four districts, the Third District Court of Appeal does not employ a central 
staff model to assist with judicial workload.  These appear to be legacy issues that 
require our continued attention.  While we recognize the need for flexibility in the 
 
- 36 - 
deployment of resources within a district court, we also see the value and merit in 
having similar workload models (i.e., presence of central staff) across districts as 
the work of the district courts is more similar than dissimilar.  As with the trial 
court workload methodology and our obligations under Article V, section 9, of the 
Florida Constitution, we must be vigilant as to the deployment of judicial 
resources.  We have communicated our concerns to the chief judge of the Third 
District Court of Appeal and have asked for a response.  We will keep the 
Legislature apprised of our analysis in next year’s certification of need opinion. 
CONCLUSION 
We have conducted both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of trial 
court judicial workload.  Using the new case weights developed in the Judicial 
Workload Study and the application of other factors identified in Florida Rule of 
Judicial Administration 2.240, we certify the need for twelve additional trial court 
judges in Florida, consisting of four in circuit court and eight in county court, as set 
forth in the appendix to this opinion.  We are also recommending the 
decertification of six county court judgeships, also identified in the appendix. 
With the help of staff from the National Center for State Courts, Florida’s 
trial courts have spent the last 18 months evaluating judicial workload.  This has 
been an extensive effort involving the participation of over 900 trial court judges 
representing all 20 judicial circuits.  We have applied a rigorous methodology 
 
- 37 - 
designed to evaluate both quantitative and qualitative aspects of judicial work, 
including: (1) appointment of an executive committee comprised of 41 trial court 
judges, two from each judicial circuit; (2) participation in a one-month time study 
with a 97 percent participation rate; (3) execution of a sufficiency of time survey; 
(4) site visits to eight judicial circuits; (5) a qualitative adjustment process 
involving 65 experienced judges; and (6) final review and approval of the adjusted 
case weights along with additional recommendations such as a higher and more 
conservative threshold for qualifying for a new judgeship. 
The workload study has been a massive judicial branch undertaking and 
demonstrates our commitment to full documentation and transparency in the 
evaluation of judicial workload.  It has now been ten years since Florida last 
received funding for new trial court judges.  We are mindful that the mortgage 
foreclosure crisis and other intervening events impacted the state’s fiscal health.  
Since those crises are waning, we strongly encourage the Legislature to fund the 
new judgeships identified in this opinion. 
The Court extends its sincere thanks and appreciation to The Honorable Paul 
Alessandroni, Chair of the Judicial Workload Study; all members of the Judicial 
Needs Assessment Committee who provided executive direction; all circuit court 
judges and county court judges for their participation in the time study and 
qualitative adjustment process; and all senior judges and quasi-judicial officers, 
 
- 38 - 
who took part in the time study.  We also thank project staff at the National Center 
for State Courts for their diligent work and collaboration with our staff in the 
completion of this critical work. 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Judges 
 
 
 
 
- 39 - 
APPENDIX 
Trial Court Need 
 
Circuit 
Circuit Court 
Certified 
Judges 
County 
County Court 
Certified 
Judges 
County Court 
Decertified 
Judges 
1 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
2 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
3 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
4 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
5 
1 
Citrus 
1 
0 
6 
0 
Pasco 
0 
1 
7 
0 
Flagler 
1 
0 
Putnam 
0 
1 
8 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
9 
3 
N/A 
0 
0 
10 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
11 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
12 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
13 
0 
Hillsborough 
3 
0 
14 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
15 
0 
Palm Beach 
1 
0 
16 
0 
Monroe 
0 
1 
17 
0 
Broward 
1 
0 
18 
0 
Brevard 
0 
1 
19 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
20 
0 
Charlotte 
0 
1 
Collier 
0 
1 
Lee 
1 
0 
Total 
4 
Total 
8 
6