Title: Certification of the Need for Additional Judges
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC12-2398
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 20, 2012

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
______________ 
 
No. SC12-2398 
______________ 
 
 
IN RE:  CERTIFICATION OF NEED 
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES. 
 
[December 20, 2012] 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This opinion fulfills our constitutional obligation to determine the State’s 
need for additional judges in Fiscal Year 2013/2014 and to certify our “findings 
and recommendations concerning such need” to the Legislature.1  Certification is 
                                                                                                                                        
 
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 - 
“the sole mechanism established by our constitution for a systematic and uniform 
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 three-year average net need, and 
considered judgeship requests submitted by the lower courts.   Applying this 
methodology, this Court certifies the need for sixty-three judgeships statewide, 
sixteen of which are in circuit court and forty-seven in county court as detailed in 
the attached appendix. 
 
We observe that state revenues, while gradually improving, continue to lag, 
thereby creating competition between funding new judgeships and attending to 
other critical state needs.  Yet, as we have noted in previous opinions, our judges 
and court staff continue to work conscientiously to administer justice and resolve 
disputes promptly.  They do so despite a demonstrated need for new judges and 
with a smaller staffing complement. 
                                                                                                                                        
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 - 
 
Our most recent analysis indicates a slight increase in probate and circuit 
civil filings.  Felony, domestic relations, juvenile delinquency, and juvenile 
dependency filings, however, have decreased.  The reduction in felony filings 
corresponds to a decline in arrests, as reported by the Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement.3  Also, while it may be too soon to indicate a sustained downward 
trend, recent juvenile justice reforms undertaken by the Florida Department of 
Juvenile Justice may also be resulting in fewer juvenile delinquency filings.4   
Notwithstanding the decreases to certain filing categories, our three-year 
average net need analysis continues to indicate that additional judgeships are 
necessary in our circuit courts.  This three-year average net need reflects sustained 
workload over a multi-year period. 
 
A number of workload trends are affecting court operations throughout the 
state.  Several of the chief judges cited problems of fewer staff to assist with case 
processing matters, substantial pending caseloads, high jury trial rates, reduced 
clearance rates, and statutory requirements requiring additional hearings for certain 
case types in civil, criminal, and family law as trends contributing to judicial 
workloads.  Other chief judges noted the effect of self-represented litigants on 
                                                                                                                                        
 
3.   Felony arrest rates as reported by the Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement dropped six and one-half percent from 2010 to 2011. 
 
4.  See Rick Scott, Governor of Florida, Reform Underway at Florida’s 
Juvenile Justice Agency (January 3, 2012), (available online at 
http://www.flagov.com). 
 
 
- 4 - 
court time and resources and the protracted delays experienced by parties in 
scheduling hearings.  Collectively, these factors contribute to court delay. 
 
Our judges continue to absorb the work previously performed by case 
managers, law clerks, magistrates, and other supplemental support staff lost in the 
budget reductions of recent years.5  Most of these positions provided direct case 
management, legal research, and adjudicatory support to our judges.  The 
consensus among chief judges is that the loss of support staff translates into slower 
case processing times, crowded dockets, and long waits to access judicial 
calendars.   
 
Several of our chief judges note, in particular, the long waits associated with 
obtaining hearing times.  In some jurisdictions, dockets are so full that it takes 
several weeks to schedule a hearing.  Similarly, judges must schedule lengthy jury 
trials months in advance.  These conditions are additional indicators of an under-
resourced court system.  Moreover, chief judges continue to report concerns 
expressed by judges that they are less able to devote adequate time to hearings due 
to significant workload. 
                                                                                                                                        
 
5.  When the case weights were originally developed in 1999 and updated in 
2007, they incorporated the availability of supplemental resources to assist judges 
with case processing matters.  It is reasonable to conclude that the loss of these 
supplemental positions (i.e., case managers, law clerks, and magistrates) may 
increase the case weights if not restored prior to the next case-weight update.   
 
 
- 5 - 
 
Workload associated with the residential mortgage foreclosure crisis 
continues to impede disposition times and rates in our circuit civil divisions.   
Due to the severity and protracted nature of the crisis, our trial courts continue to 
struggle with heavy pending caseloads and the slow resurgence of foreclosure 
filings.  Further, this crisis has had a ripple effect on the workload of other court 
divisions as chief judges and administrative judges allocate limited court resources 
to address demand.   In recognition of this protracted crisis the Legislature, through 
the Foreclosure Backlog Reduction Initiative, provided dedicated funding for 
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 that has enabled the court system to secure the services of 
additional senior judges and case managers.   Resources from the national 
mortgage settlement agreement have also been made available to assist the courts 
in addressing the foreclosure case backlog.  This Court is grateful for this funding.  
The case managers and senior judges made available through this funding are in 
place to make a difference in reducing the foreclosure backlog throughout the state.   
 
County court workload remains high.  Unlike circuit court, which has 
witnessed a slight decrease in judicial need, county court judicial need is 
significant and holding steady.  In select jurisdictions, some chief judges report 
that credit card debt cases and landlord tenant cases are increasing county court 
workload.  Moreover, the loss of civil traffic infraction hearing officers in county 
court continues to increase county judge workload as these cases are shifted back 
 
 
- 6 - 
to the judicial dockets throughout the state.  These factors contribute to a high 
county court judicial need. 
 
Another sustained trend in both county and circuit court reported by the 
chief judges is that self-represented litigants continue to have an impact on 
Florida’s court system.  All divisions are experiencing an increase in self-
represented litigants.  Frequently, self-represented litigants are unprepared for the 
rigors of presenting evidence, following rules of procedure, and generally 
representing themselves in court.  Consequently, they often require enhanced 
judicial involvement, which entails lengthier hearings, rescheduled hearings, and 
court delay.   
DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL 
 
The Second District Court of Appeal requests two additional judgeships, 
citing its current averaged weighted judicial workload of 315 cases per judge and 
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240(b)(2)(B), which provides that a 
presumption of need arises “where the relative weight of cases disposed on the 
merits per judge would have exceeded 280 after application of the proposed 
additional judge(s).”   As with last year’s opinion, we have used a three-year 
average of weighted dispositions per judge which is consistent with our discretion 
under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240. 
 
 
- 7 - 
 
A number of factors contribute to the overall high workload in the Second 
District, including increases within the civil, criminal post-conviction, other 
criminal, juvenile, and family case categories.  The chief judge of the Second 
District also cites a backlog of pending cases noting a twenty percent increase in 
their pending caseload since Fiscal Year 2007/2008.  
 
Clearance rate trends also demonstrate the backlog building in the Second 
District.  In Fiscal Year 2011/2012, there were 6,834 cases filed and 6,018 cases 
disposed, a clearance rate of eighty-eight percent.   For the same period, with 
respect to criminal judgment and sentence cases, there were 1,720 cases filed and 
1,248 cases disposed, reflecting a clearance rate of seventy-three percent. 
 
The Second District also notes that despite high caseloads and a reduction in 
resources including personnel, the judges and staff have made every effort to 
properly execute their responsibilities.  However, 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 of the Second District and remains concerned about a diminished quality of 
justice resulting from high workload and a loss of resources. 
 
While the Second District Court of Appeal has requested that two additional 
district court judges be certified, our analysis of the three-year weighted 
dispositions per judge average indicates that they do not meet the threshold of 280 
 
 
- 8 - 
weighted dispositions per judge after a second judge is added.  Therefore, we 
certify the need for one additional district court judge in the Second District for 
Fiscal Year 2013/2014.6  
CONCLUSION 
 
We have conducted both quantitative and qualitative assessments of judicial 
workload.  Using the case weighted methodology and the application of other 
factors identified in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240, we certify the 
need for sixty-three additional trial court judges in Florida, consisting of sixteen in 
circuit court and forty-seven in county court, as set forth in the appendix to this 
opinion, and one additional district court judge in the Second District Court of 
Appeal. 
 
Many of the workload trends we identified in last year’s certification opinion 
remain today.  In response, our courts continue to proactively manage their dockets 
to ensure that the administration of justice is not diminished.  Yet despite these 
measures, we remain concerned that the timeliness and quality of justice are being 
adversely affected.   
 
We appreciate recent action by the Legislature to stabilize court operations 
funding, and help the courts to address foreclosure case backlog issues.  We 
                                                                                                                                        
 
6.  One additional judgeship in the second district will place its weighted 
dispositions per judge at 294.  A certification of two judgeships would place its 
weighted dispositions per judge at 276, four below the threshold.  
 
 
- 9 - 
recognize that the funding of new judgeships is an expensive proposition, 
especially during difficult economic times with diminished state revenues.  There 
are many competing needs within state government and our court system.  We 
have carefully weighed the need for additional judges and for the operational and 
facilities needs within the trial and appellate courts.  We encourage the Legislature 
to first fund the Judicial Branch Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Legislative Budget Request 
as there are significant facility and operational issues contained therein which merit 
funding.  To the extent funding is available, we urge the Legislature also to 
consider our certified need for additional judges. 
 
It is so ordered. 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Certification of the Need for Additional Judges 
 
 
- 10 - 
APPENDIX 
Trial Court Need 
Circuit 
Circuit Court 
Certified Judges 
County 
County Court 
Certified Judges 
1 
3 
NA 
0 
2 
0 
NA 
0 
3 
0 
NA 
0 
4 
1 
Duval 
5 
5 
3 
Citrus 
1 
Lake 
1 
Marion 
1 
6 
1 
NA 
0 
7 
2 
Flagler 
1 
Volusia 
2 
8 
0 
NA 
0 
9 
1 
Orange 
3 
Osceola 
1 
10 
0 
NA 
0 
11 
0 
Miami-Dade 
11 
12 
0 
Manatee 
1 
Sarasota 
1 
13 
0 
Hillsborough 
4 
14 
1 
Bay 
0 
15 
1 
Palm Beach 
5 
16 
0 
NA 
0 
17 
0 
Broward 
6 
18 
0 
Seminole 
1 
19 
1 
St. Lucie 
1 
20 
2 
Lee 
2 
Total 
16 
Total 
47