Title: In Re: Certification Of Need For Additional Judges
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC11-2246
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 15, 2011

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
______________ 
 
No. SC11-2246 
______________ 
 
 
IN RE:  CERTIFICATION OF NEED 
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES. 
 
[December 15, 2011] 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This opinion fulfills our constitutional obligation to determine the State’s 
need for additional judges in Fiscal Year 2012/2013 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.  As part of our 
ongoing effort to carefully evaluate judicial workload and within our discretion 
pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240, we have slightly 
modified our methodology this year, using a three-year average net need rather 
than the sustained net judicial need based on the lowest need for the prior three 
years.  We believe that this modification to our methodology more accurately 
reflects the net judicial need from year to year. 
 
Applying this methodology, this Court certifies the need for seventy-one 
judgeships statewide, twenty-three of which are in circuit court and forty-eight in 
county court. 
                                          
 
 
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 - 
 
We submit this certification recognizing the economic difficulties that 
continue to affect both the private sector and the public sector in Florida.  Further, 
we acknowledge that state general revenues remain low, thereby creating 
competition between funding new judgeships and other critical state needs.  Yet, as 
we noted in last year’s certification opinion,3 our judges and court staff continue to 
work diligently to ensure the administration of justice and the timely resolution of 
disputes.  They do so despite a demonstrated net need for new judges and with 
fewer support staff. 
 
Our analysis indicates that felony, delinquency, and civil filings have 
decreased in circuit court relative to previous years.  The drop in felony and 
delinquency filings correlates with fewer arrests being made as reported by the 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement.  The drop in circuit civil filings is 
primarily attributable to the self-imposed moratorium on residential mortgage 
foreclosures by various lending institutions.  However, mortgage foreclosure 
filings are projected to increase in the coming months.  Notwithstanding the 
decreases to certain filing categories, our three-year average net need analysis 
indicates that additional judgeships are necessary in our circuit courts.  This three-
year average net need reflects accumulated workload over a multi-year period. 
                                          
 
 
3.  In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 60 So. 3d 955 (Fla. 
2011). 
 
 
- 4 - 
 
Chief judges have identified a number of the workload trends that are 
affecting court operations throughout the state.  Several of the chief judges cited 
low clearance rates, substantial pending caseloads, high jury trial rates, fewer staff 
to assist with case processing matters, and statutory requirements requiring 
additional hearings for certain case types in civil, criminal, and family law as 
contributing to judicial workloads.  Others note the protracted delays experienced 
by parties in scheduling hearings along with the impact of self-represented litigants 
on court time and resources.  Collectively, these factors contribute to court delay. 
 
Our judges continue to absorb 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.4  Most of these positions provided 
direct case management, legal research, and adjudicatory support to our judges.  
Chief judges have advised us that the loss of support staff translates into slower 
case processing times, crowded dockets, and long waits to access judicial 
calendars.  Restoration of case processing support staff lost in the budget 
reductions over the last three years remains a priority for the judicial branch.  
                                          
 
 
4.  It is important to note that 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.  Increased case weights may translate 
into the need for more judgeships. 
 
 
- 5 - 
Accordingly, we fully support the trial courts’ Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Legislative 
Budget Request that seeks additional funding for case managers, general 
magistrates, and law clerks,5 as these positions are integral to case disposition, 
docket management, and pending caseload reduction. 
 
Several of our chief judges noted 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, lengthy jury trials must be scheduled months in 
advance.  These conditions are additional indicators of an under-resourced court 
system.  This situation frustrates all who use the courts, especially litigants, their 
lawyers, and our judges.  Chief judges continue to report concerns that judges are 
unable to devote sufficient time to hearings due to significant workload. 
 
The circuits have responded admirably to changing circumstances bearing 
on caseloads, including case complexity, demographics, and other factors within 
their jurisdictions.  Where appropriate, the circuits continue to use mediation and 
differentiated case management techniques to address workload.  Moreover, as the 
complexity of Florida’s caseload increases, many jurisdictions have chosen to 
respond by instituting specialized court dockets.  These include juvenile and adult 
                                          
 
 
5.  The Florida State Courts System’s Legislative Budget Request for Fiscal 
Year 2012/2013 is available on the Florida Fiscal Portal at 
http://floridafiscalportal.state.fl.us/. 
 
 
- 6 - 
drug courts; veterans’ courts; those dealing with probate, elder, and mental health 
proceedings; and tobacco cases, asbestos cases, and other complex cases. 
 
Workload associated with the residential mortgage foreclosure crisis 
continues to impede disposition times and rates in our circuit civil division.  The 
Court is grateful to the Legislature for funding the Foreclosure and Economic 
Recovery Initiative, which terminated on June 30, 2011.  The case managers and 
senior judges used in the Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Initiative made a 
significant difference in reducing backlog throughout the state.  Unfortunately, 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.  The absence of additional case processing resources, such as case 
managers and senior judges, will continue to delay case processing times and 
pending caseloads in our civil divisions for the foreseeable future.  Moreover, this 
crisis has a ripple effect on the workload of other court divisions as chief judges 
and administrative judges allocate limited court resources to address demand. 
 
County court workload continues to increase in several areas, including 
evictions and landlord/tenant cases.  In select jurisdictions, some chief judges 
report that personal injury protection and credit card debt cases are impacting 
county court workload. 
 
 
- 7 - 
 
The loss of civil traffic infraction hearing officers in county court continues 
to have an impact on county judge workload throughout the state.  In many 
counties, county judges are hearing traffic cases previously processed by the civil 
traffic infraction hearing officers. 
 
Self-represented litigants continue to affect Florida’s court system.  All 
circuit and county civil 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.  
That court cites to its workload 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).”  Using our discretion under 
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240 and as part of our ongoing effort to 
carefully evaluate judicial workload, we have slightly modified our methodology 
this year for the district courts, using a three-year average of weighted dispositions 
 
 
- 8 - 
per judge.  We believe that this modification to our methodology more accurately 
reflects the net judicial need from year to year. 
 
A number of factors are impacting the overall workload in the Second 
District, including changes in statutes requiring appellate review and clarification, 
changes in criminal and sentencing statutes, and growth in prison population and 
postconviction motions.  Other factors impacting case processing include the 
unavailability of senior judges and fewer central staff attorneys to assist the judges 
with legal research and related case processing matters due to budget reductions.  
Of particular concern to this Court is the observation by the Chief Judge of the 
Second District that although the district has been able to maintain high clearance 
and disposition rates, it does so at the expense of time dedicated to a given case. 
 
The Chief Judge of the Second District also cites to two qualitative factors 
contained in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240:  effectiveness and 
professionalism.  Effectiveness means that each appellate court judge must have 
adequate time to review and consider briefs, petitions, motions, and memoranda to 
fully research legal issues, write opinions, and review all decisions by the court.  
Given their current workload, the judges in the Second District find themselves 
increasingly challenged to fully meet the rigors of the effectiveness standard. 
 
The professionalism factors of the rule speak to judicial participation in 
activities designed to enhance lawyer and judicial professionalism, improve the 
 
 
- 9 - 
administration of justice, and improve relations between the bench and bar.  The 
Second District notes that high workloads and reduced resources continue to 
adversely affect its judges’ ability to meet this standard. 
 
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 
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 2012/2013. 
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 seventy-one additional trial court judges in Florida, 
consisting of twenty-three in circuit court and forty-eight 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 
 
 
- 10 - 
measures, we remain concerned that the timeliness and quality of justice are being 
adversely affected. 
 
As we certify the need for new judgeships, we also observe that the last year 
has proven very difficult for Florida’s State Court System due to the depletion of 
funds in the State Courts Revenue Trust Fund in the spring.  While the State Courts 
Revenue Trust Fund was created by the Legislature to address funding issues in the 
court system, it has proven insufficient to sustain funding for the judicial branch.  
To address this deficiency, the Legislature directed the state courts, pursuant to 
Specific Appropriation 2986 in the 2011 General Appropriations Act,6 to work 
with the clerks of court to identify appropriate and sufficient funding streams for 
both the court system and the clerks of court.  Those recommendations have been 
submitted to the Legislature. 
 
We recognize that the funding of new judgeships is an expensive 
proposition, especially during difficult economic times with diminished state 
revenues.  If monies become available, we encourage the Legislature to give 
priority consideration to funding the trial courts’ Fiscal Year 2012/2013 
Legislative Budget Request for positions to assist with case processing (i.e., case 
managers, law clerks, and magistrates). 
 
It is so ordered. 
                                          
 
 
6.  Available at http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/Adhoc/ 
Appropriations/GAA/2011-Senate/CR_SB_2000.pdf. 
 
 
- 11 - 
CANADY, C.J., and LEWIS, PARIENTE, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Certification of the Need for Additional Judges 
 
 
 
- 12 - 
APPENDIX 
Trial Court Need 
 
Circuit 
Circuit Court 
Certified Judges 
County 
County Court 
Certified Judges 
1 
4 
NA 
0 
2 
0 
NA 
0 
3 
0 
NA 
0 
4 
1 
Duval 
4 
5 
4 
Citrus 
1 
Lake 
1 
Marion 
1 
6 
1 
NA 
0 
7 
2 
Flagler 
1 
St. Johns 
1 
Volusia 
2 
8 
0 
NA 
0 
9 
2 
Orange 
3 
Osceola 
1 
10 
1 
Polk 
1 
11 
0 
Miami-Dade 
10 
12 
1 
Manatee 
1 
Sarasota 
1 
13 
1 
Hillsborough 
4 
14 
1 
Bay 
1 
15 
1 
Palm Beach 
5 
16 
0 
NA 
0 
17 
0 
Broward 
6 
18 
1 
Seminole 
1 
19 
1 
St. Lucie 
1 
20 
2 
Lee 
2 
Total 
23 
Total 
48