Title: In Re: Certification of Need For Additional Judges

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
_____________ 
 
No. SC11-182 
_____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  CERTIFICATION OF NEED 
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES. 
 
 
[February 17, 2011] 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
This opinion fulfills our constitutional obligation to determine the State’s 
need for additional judges in Fiscal Year 2011/2012 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).  
TRIAL COURTS 
The Florida Supreme Court continues to use a weighted caseload system as a 
primary basis for assessing judicial need for the trial courts.2  Using objective 
standards, this Court has examined case filing and disposition data, analyzed 
various judicial workload indicators, applied a sustained net need analysis, and 
considered judgeship requests submitted by the lower courts.  Applying this 
methodology, this Court certifies the need for eighty additional trial court 
judgeships statewide, twenty-six in circuit court and fifty-four in county court.3 
As we make this certification, we also are aware that difficulties in our 
economic situation continue to have a severe impact on both the private and public 
sectors in Florida.  With over one million Floridians unemployed and significant 
deficits in the state budget, we recognize that funding new judgeships will compete 
with other critical state priorities.  Nonetheless, the reality is that Florida’s circuit 
and county judges are overloaded with new filings, have substantial caseloads, and 
                                         
 
2.  Our certification methodology relies primarily on case weights and 
calculations of available judge time to determine the need for additional trial court 
judges.  See Fla. R. Jud. Admin 2.240. 
 
 
3.  The needed judgeships in the circuit and county courts are set forth in the 
table in the attached appendix. 
 
- 3 - 
have fewer support staff to assist with the disposition of cases.  Taken together, 
these factors continue to hamper the effective administration of justice in Florida. 
The trial court chief judges have provided us with ample justification to 
certify new judgeships to the Legislature.  First, the chief judges have identified a 
number of workload trends that are affecting court operations throughout the state.  
Several chief judges have cited filing increases across multiple divisions, slower 
case processing times, increases in pending caseloads, and higher jury trial rates.  
Dropping clearance rates, a key barometer of the relationship between court filings 
and dispositions, were also cited by many chief judges. 
Second, the ongoing challenges to state government associated with the 
current economic crisis have resulted in considerable reductions in trial court 
funding.  Trial court expense budgets and support staff have been significantly 
reduced.  Judges are absorbing the work previously performed by magistrates, law 
clerks, case managers, and other supplemental support staff lost in the budget 
reductions of the last several years.  As noted in last year’s certification opinion,4 
we have lost a total of 249 trial court staff positions due to reductions to our 
budget.  Most of these positions provided direct case management, legal research, 
and adjudicatory support to our judges.  The loss of staff translates into slower case 
processing times, crowded dockets, and long waits to access judicial calendars.  
                                         
 
4.  In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 29 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 
2010). 
 
- 4 - 
Another consequence of high caseloads and reduced staff support is less judicial 
time spent on hearings.  Some of our judges believe that the quality of justice being 
delivered today is suffering because they do not have adequate time to devote to 
each case.  We find that observation troubling.  Over time, these factors can result 
in a weakening of the effective administration of justice throughout the state. 
Third, several of the trial court chief judges also note the significant 
increases in pro se (i.e., self-represented litigants) filings for multiple divisions of 
court.  This observation is not surprising given the state of our economy.  Many 
citizens cannot afford to hire an attorney and choose to represent themselves in 
court.  Pro se litigants are often unprepared for the rigors of presenting evidence, 
following rules of procedure, and representing themselves in court.  Cases 
involving pro se litigants frequently require enhanced judicial involvement which 
entails lengthier or rescheduled hearings, which can result in litigant frustration 
and court delay. 
Fourth, the mortgage foreclosure crisis continues to challenge every judicial 
circuit in Florida.  The attendant workload associated with the total volume of 
foreclosure filings far outweighs current judicial capacity, notwithstanding the 
additional senior judge and case manager resources provided by the Legislature to 
assist with this crisis. 
 
- 5 - 
And fifth, the loss of the civil traffic infraction hearing officers in county 
court continues to impact county judges throughout the state.  In many counties, 
county judges are hearing traffic cases previously processed by these hearing 
officers.  This additional workload greatly expands county court dockets, creating 
case processing delays.  As we have noted in previous certification opinions, 
having county court judges perform work that could be processed by civil traffic 
infraction hearing officers is not the best use of valuable judicial time. 
Trial court judges have responded admirably by doing more with less and 
staying focused on managing their caseloads using available resources.  Where 
possible, they have sought efficiencies by applying various management 
techniques such as differentiated case management, alternative dispute resolution, 
jury selection backup during trial weeks, and improved scheduling and 
calendaring.  Their unwavering commitment to advancing the administration of 
justice during these difficult economic times is laudable, and we commend them. 
The Court also takes notice that while the trial courts have identified their 
need for the additional supplemental resources necessary to ensure the efficient and 
effective flow of cases, their legislative budget request to the Legislature for Fiscal 
Year 2011/2012 was significantly scaled back due to the forecasted revenue 
deficits the State is facing.  The Court would support a request for additional 
resources and, at the very least, the restoration of lost resources in the lower courts 
 
- 6 - 
but respects the trial courts’ willingness to continue to make do with less in 
acknowledgment of the tremendous demands on state government. 
DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL 
No district court of appeal requested additional judgeships for Fiscal Year 
2011/2012.  Consequently, the Court is not addressing the need for additional 
district court judges in this opinion.  
CONCLUSION 
We have conducted both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of judicial 
workload.  Using the case weighted methodology required by the Legislature and 
the application of other factors identified in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 
2.240, we certify the need for eighty additional trial court judges in Florida.  At the 
same time, we recognize that our State is caught in a period of protracted economic 
difficulties which are impacting all sectors of state government and that the 
Legislature will be confronted with extraordinarily challenging funding decisions 
in the upcoming session.  We are hopeful, however, that the demonstrated need for 
additional judges in Florida can be addressed when the State’s fiscal condition 
improves. 
In the difficult fiscal circumstances confronting the Legislature, we 
respectfully urge that the Legislature consider the priority of maintaining adequate 
funding for the courts which provide justice for the people of Florida. 
 
- 7 - 
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Certification of the Need for Additional Judges 
 
 
- 8 - 
APPENDIX 
TRIAL COURT NEED 
 
Circuit 
Circuit Court 
Certified Judges County 
County Court 
Certified Judges 
1 
4 
NA 
0 
2 
0 
NA 
0 
3 
0 
Columbia 
1 
4 
1 
Duval 
6 
5 
4 
Citrus 
1 
Lake 
1 
Marion 
1 
6 
1 
Pasco 
0 
Pinellas 
1 
7 
2 
St. Johns 
1 
Volusia 
2 
8 
0 
Alachua 
1 
9 
1 
Orange 
3 
Osceola 
1 
10 
1 
Polk 
2 
11 
0 
Miami-Dade 
10 
12 
1 
Manatee 
1 
Sarasota 
1 
13 
1 
Hillsborough 
3 
14 
2 
Bay 
1 
15 
2 
Palm Beach 
5 
16 
0 
NA 
0 
17 
0 
Broward 
6 
18 
1 
Brevard 
1 
Seminole 
1 
19 
2 
St. Lucie 
1 
20 
3 
Collier 
1 
Lee 
2 
Total 
26 
Total 
54