Title: In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC2023-1586
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2023

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
______________ 
 
No. SC2023-1586 
______________ 
 
IN RE:  CERTIFICATION OF NEED 
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES. 
 
November 30, 2023 
 
PER CURIAM. 
This opinion addresses the need to increase or decrease the 
number of judges in fiscal year 2024-25 and certifies 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 Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 889 So. 2d 
734, 735 (Fla. 2004).  A separate opinion, to be released on a future 
date, will address the Court’s findings as to whether there is a need 
to decrease the number of judicial circuits.2   
In this opinion, we certify the need for one additional circuit 
court judgeship (in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit) and five 
additional county court judgeships (three in Orange County and 
two in Hillsborough County).  We certify no need for additional 
district court of appeal judgeships.  We certify the need to decrease 
two county court judgeships (one each in Alachua and Brevard 
Counties) and certify that there is no need to decrease the number 
of circuit court judgeships.  Although we certify there is no need to 
decrease the number of district court of appeal judgeships, we 
 
legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and 
recommendations concerning such need. 
2.  See In re Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee, Florida 
Administrative Order No. AOSC23-35 (June 30, 2023), which 
establishes a committee to study whether consolidation of the 
state’s existing judicial circuits is warranted.  The committee’s 
findings and recommendations are due to the chief justice by 
December 1, 2023.  
 
- 3 - 
acknowledge excess judicial capacity in the First District Court of 
Appeal and the Second District Court of Appeal.  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 to vacate his or her position involuntarily.   
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.3  The case weighting system distinguishes the 
types of cases and addresses the differences in the amount of time 
that must be spent on cases of each type, producing a total judicial 
need for each circuit.  Additionally, the methodology includes 
adjustments for differing jury trial rates, chief judge responsibilities, 
and canvassing boards in each circuit and county.  The trial courts 
also submit judgeship needs applications that supplement the 
objective weighted caseload data, including descriptions of how 
 
3.  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 - 
secondary factors4 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 
situations in which the objective case weights alone would indicate 
excess judicial capacity.   
For more than two decades, Florida’s trial courts have used a 
weighted caseload method to determine the need for judges in each 
of their circuit and county courts.  The original recommendations of 
the 2000 Florida Delphi-Based Weighted Caseload Project: Final 
Report, and the subsequently modified Florida Rule of General 
Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240, call for the weighted 
caseload method to be updated every five years.  Recommendations 
from the last formal judicial workload assessment were published in 
May 2016.  Given the impacts of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 
 
4.  Other factors that may be utilized in the determination of 
judicial need are prescribed in Florida Rule of General Practice and 
Judicial Administration 2.240.  
 
 
- 5 - 
pandemic and recent jurisdictional threshold changes5 within the 
trial courts, that cyclical review was necessarily delayed.  It is 
important for any new trial court case weights developed to be valid 
and reliable and have a “shelf-life” to substantiate determinations of 
judicial need until the next formal methodology review.  The Court 
is mindful that we are now seven years removed from updating the 
case weights used to evaluate trial court judicial workload.  The 
Court has determined it appropriate to take a cautious approach to 
certifying the need to decrease judgeships until the new weights 
become available in summer 2024. 
In early 2023, the Office of the State Courts Administrator 
began the process of updating all trial court case weights.  This is a 
statewide effort involving all circuit court judges, county court 
judges, senior judges, magistrates, child support enforcement 
hearing officers, and civil traffic infraction hearing officers.  Total 
annual workload is calculated by multiplying the annual filings for 
each case type by the corresponding case weight, then summing the 
 
5.  Under chapter 2019-58, section 9, Laws of Florida, county 
court monetary jurisdiction increased to an upper limit of $30,000 
on January 1, 2020, and increased to $50,000 on January 1, 2023.   
 
- 6 - 
workload across all case types.  Each court’s workload is then 
divided by a judge year value to determine the total number of full-
time equivalent judges needed to handle the workload.  This 
workload assessment is comprehensive and will be carefully 
validated.  As with previous workload studies, the Legislature is 
apprised through communication of study status to the Office of 
Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability.  Oversight 
of this initiative is being conducted by a Judicial Needs Assessment 
Committee and the Commission on Trial Court Performance and 
Accountability.6  As with previous studies, we have contracted with 
the National Center for State Courts7 to conduct the study with 
assistance from the Office of the State Courts Administrator.  The 
 
6.  In re Commission on Trial Court Performance and 
Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC22-36 (July 28, 2022). 
 
7.  Staff of the National Center for State Courts are subject 
matter experts in evaluating judicial workload and have conducted 
similar workload studies in more than 30 states throughout the 
country.  See Workload assessment, Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts., 
http://www.ncsc.org/workload-assessment (last visited November 
20, 2023). 
 
- 7 - 
study formally began in January 2023 and is expected to conclude 
by June 2024. 
Based on the analysis under the weighted caseload 
methodology, and using the existing case weights pending 
completion of the updated study, we conclude that there is a 
demonstrable need for an additional circuit court judge in the 
Twentieth Judicial Circuit.  Additionally, under this same 
methodology, we conclude there is a demonstrable need for three 
additional county court judges for Orange County and two 
additional county court judges for Hillsborough County.8  The two-
step analysis and consideration of other factors suggested the need 
to decrease circuit court judgeships in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit 
and the need to decrease county court judgeships in Alachua 
County and Brevard County.  However, the Court determines that 
other relevant circumstances further explained below, coupled with 
the secondary-factor analysis, militate against certifying the need to 
 
8.  Applying the weighted caseload methodology, Walton 
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. 
 
- 8 - 
decrease all but two of those county court judgeships, one 
judgeship in Alachua County and one judgeship in Brevard County.  
We base this recommendation on a demonstrated, multi-year trend 
of excess judicial capacity in those two counties. 
The judicial needs applications submitted by the chief judges 
noted some limitations of the existing case weights to capture a 
complete picture of case complexity addressed by trial court judges.  
Since the last case weight update in 2016, state laws have changed 
significantly, affecting the courts’ work in interpreting and applying 
those laws.  Court operations have also changed significantly as a 
result of the pandemic.  Further, trial court jurisdictional 
thresholds9 have changed, affecting workload in the circuit and 
county courts.   
The Court also considered other significant factors, including 
the anticipated cases resulting from recent hurricanes that have 
affected the state and judicial time related to the implementation of 
civil case management requirements.10  These factors contributed to 
 
9.  See supra note 5.  
 
10.  See In re COVID-19 Health and Safety Protocols and 
Emergency Operational Measures for Florida Appellate and Trial 
 
- 9 - 
the Court’s cautious approach to certifying the need to decrease 
trial court judgeships. 
District Courts of Appeal 
In furtherance of our constitutional obligation to determine the 
State’s need for additional judges in fiscal year 2024-25,11 this 
opinion certifies the need for no additional district court judgeships.   
At our direction,12 and pursuant to rule 2.240, the 
Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and 
Accountability reviewed the workload trends of the district courts of 
appeal and considered adjustments in the relative case weights.  As 
in other district court workload assessments, the Commission 
conducted a review of the existing case types, identified the median 
case by which all other cases would be measured, and administered 
 
Courts, Florida Administrative Order No. AOSC21-17, Amendment 3 
(Jan. 8, 2022), which requires presiding judges to actively manage 
civil cases, including issuing case management orders that address 
deadlines for serving complaints and extensions, adding new 
parties, completing discovery, resolving objections to pleadings, and 
resolving pretrial motions. 
 
11.  See supra note 1. 
 
12.  See In re Commission on District Court of Appeal 
Performance and Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-55 
(June 24, 2020). 
 
- 10 - 
a survey to district court judges to gather data on the workload 
associated with disposing cases by type.  Case weights were then 
developed and applied to each court’s dispositions on the merits to 
determine the weighted caseload value.  The weighted caseload 
model is a more accurate representation of judicial workload in that 
it addresses differences in the amount of judicial time that must be 
spent on each type of case.  The Court approved the updated 
weights in June 2023, and this certification opinion is based on 
those new case weights.   
The Court also recently directed13 the Commission on District 
Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability to examine the 
factors used to determine the need to certify increasing or 
decreasing the number of judges on a district court, the language 
regarding a presumption of need for an additional judgeship, and a 
means for evaluating if a district court has surplus judicial 
capacity.  Given this ongoing review, the recent adjustment in 
district court case weights, and the excess district court of appeal 
 
13.  See In re Commission on District Court of Appeal 
Performance and Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC22-24 
(July 12, 2022).  
 
- 11 - 
capacity discussed below, the Court determined it would not be 
appropriate to certify the need for additional district court 
judgeships at this time.  
As addressed in previous certifications of need for additional 
judges,14 the Court recognizes excess judicial capacity in the First 
District and the Second District based on the addition of a sixth 
district, corresponding jurisdictional boundary changes in three 
existing districts, and the policy decision not to require judges to 
relocate.  However, the Court continues to recommend that this 
excess capacity be addressed over time through attrition and 
therefore is not certifying the need to decrease any district court 
judgeships. 
Based on a current workload analysis,15 and as was noted in 
last year’s judicial certification opinion, we have determined that 
 
14.  See In re Redefinition of App. Dists. & Certif. of Need for 
Addt’l App. Judges, 345 So. 3d 703, 706 (Fla. 2021); In re Certif. of 
Need for Addt’l Judges, 353 So. 3d 565, 568 (Fla. 2022).  
 
15.  Cases disposed on the merits by the district courts of 
appeal were historically realigned, based on the current six district 
boundary lines, for the purpose of the workload calculations.  Six 
months of actual data were available for use for the new Sixth 
District Court of Appeal, and that data was combined with the 
 
- 12 - 
there is estimated excess judicial capacity in the First District and 
Second District.  To address this situation, this Court recommends 
that during the 2024 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.16  The goal of the Court’s recommended 
approach, consistent with last year’s opinion, is to address excess 
district court judicial capacity without prematurely ending an 
existing judge’s judicial career. 
 
historical re-creation of that district court’s caseload for purposes of 
analysis.    
 
16.  See Fla. SB 490 (2024) (proposed amendment to § 35.06, 
Fla. Stat.); Fla. HB 457 (2024) (same).  
 
- 13 - 
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,17 as well as considering qualitative 
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 increase or decrease judgeships in the 
district courts of appeal at this time.  As the Court noted in its 
previous certification opinions, it will take some time to fully assess 
the effect of the jurisdictional boundary changes on workload and 
judicial need for any given district court and statewide.   
Conclusion 
We have conducted a quantitative and a qualitative 
assessment of trial court and appellate court judicial workload. 
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 one additional circuit 
court judgeship in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, three additional 
 
17.  Our certification methodology relies primarily on the 
relative weight of cases disposed on the merits to determine the 
need for additional district court judges.  See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & 
Jud. Admin. 2.240. 
 
- 14 - 
county court judges for Orange County, and two additional county 
court judges for Hillsborough County.  We recommend no decrease 
in circuit court judgeships, a decrease of one county court 
judgeship in Alachua County, and 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, COURIEL, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur. 
LABARGA, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. 
SASSO, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in 
which GROSSHANS, J., concurs. 
 
LABARGA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
For the reasons expressed in Justice Sasso’s concurring in 
part and dissenting in part opinion, I dissent from the majority’s 
opinion to the extent it decertifies judgeships in Alachua and 
Brevard counties. 
 
- 15 - 
However, I concur with the majority in all other respects, 
including its decision to decline to certify the need for an additional 
judge in the Sixth District Court of Appeal. 
SASSO, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
I agree with the majority’s decision to certify the need for 
additional judgeships in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit and in 
Orange and Hillsborough Counties.  For the reasons I will explain 
though, I disagree with both the decision to certify a decreased need 
in Alachua and Brevard Counties and the decision not to certify the 
need for an additional judgeship in the Sixth District.  
Trial Courts 
Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 
2.240 guides our determination of the need for additional judges 
and provides that we may consider two categories of data.  The first 
and primary category is the quantitative data, based chiefly upon a 
workload measurement derived from the application of case weights 
to circuit and county court caseload statistics.  See Fla. R. Gen. 
Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.240(b)(1)(A).  The second is the qualitative 
data, which includes several factors that, while more difficult to 
quantify, help fully measure judicial workload.  See Fla. R. Gen. 
 
- 16 - 
Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.240(b)(1)(B), (c).  To assess the qualitative 
factors, we largely rely on the annual reports and requests provided 
by the chief judge of each circuit. 
This year, there is a considerable disconnect between the 
determination that flows from application of the quantitative 
measurement (the weighted caseload methodology) and the 
determination that flows from consideration of the chief judges’ 
reports and requests.  For example, the weighted caseload 
methodology results in the determination that only one circuit, the 
Twentieth Circuit, has the need for an additional circuit judge.  But 
eleven out of the state’s twenty circuits have requested at least one 
additional circuit judge, with some circuits requesting up to four 
additional judges.  Similarly, the weighted caseload methodology 
results in the conclusion that eighteen county courts should have 
judicial positions decertified.  But the chief judges do not agree, 
citing inter alia population growth, the increased request for 
interpreters, the number of county court judges performing circuit 
court work, and the substantial resources county court judges 
commit to community endeavors. 
 
- 17 - 
The cause for the disconnect is somewhat speculative, but 
there are a few things we know for sure.  As the majority notes, the 
metrics underlying the weighted caseload methodology have not 
been evaluated since 2016, despite our determination that they 
should be reevaluated every five years.  And as the majority notes, 
there is a good and valid explanation for that delay, but the fact 
remains that it has not been done.  We also know that Florida’s 
court system has undergone considerable changes since 2016, 
including subject matter jurisdiction changes, a reconfiguration of 
the district courts, and lasting operational modifications resulting 
from the global pandemic.  
Given the clear disconnect between the quantitative and 
qualitative data, and what is likely an outdated mode of producing 
quantitative results, I agree with the majority’s cautious approach. 
However, in my view, it is not cautious enough.  Until we have the 
benefit of a refined weighted caseload methodology, I believe we 
should maintain the status quo except where the formula results in 
a recommendation for additional judgeships.  This approach better 
reflects the reports from the chief judges, which I find more 
persuasive than the results produced by applying the case weight 
 
- 18 - 
methodology.  For that reason, I respectfully dissent from the 
majority’s opinion to the extent that it certifies a decreased need for 
judgeships in Brevard and Alachua Counties. 
District Courts 
Only one district court, the newly created Sixth District, has 
requested an additional judge.  This request would bring the 
number of judges serving the Sixth District to ten, which is the 
number of judges that this Court initially determined would 
accurately reflect the needs of the district.  See In re Redefinition of 
App. Dists. & Certif. of Need for Addt’l App. Judges, 345 So. 3d 703, 
706 (Fla. 2021).  And while the Sixth District only has about a year 
of experience on which it can draw, the judges of that district have 
provided a thoughtful analysis outlining the inherent limitations of 
the current methodology’s ability to produce an accurate picture of 
the Sixth District’s needs.  To fill the gap, the Sixth District draws 
on existing data to provide a more representative view of the 
district’s current and future needs.  In doing so, the Sixth District 
makes a strong case for why this Court’s initial assessment was 
correct.  For that reason, I would certify the need for an additional 
 
- 19 - 
judge in the Sixth District, and I respectfully dissent from the 
portion of the majority’s opinion declining to do so. 
 
GROSSHANS, J., concurs. 
 
Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Judges