Title: In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.320
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC23-114
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 2023

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC23-114 
____________ 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF GENERAL 
PRACTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.320. 
 
February 2, 2023 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Court, on its own motion, amends Florida Rule of General 
Practice and Judicial Administration 2.320 (Continuing Judicial 
Education) to align the rule with recent Court-approved changes to 
the policies and procedures of the Florida Court Education 
Council.1 
We amend rule 2.320 as reflected in the appendix to this 
opinion.  Among other changes in subdivision (b)(2) (Minimum 
Requirements), we add an explanation of the portions of approved 
courses that can be used to fulfill the judicial ethics requirement, 
and we address the availability of credit for completion of Florida 
 
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. 
Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(d). 
 
- 2 - 
Judicial College programs.  In subdivision (c) (Course Approval), the 
Court clarifies approval for courses.  And in subdivision (e) 
(Reporting Requirements and Sanctions), we direct that the Office of 
Court Education within the Office of the State Courts Administrator 
monitor compliance with the rule. 
New language is indicated by underscoring in the appendix, 
and deletions are indicated by struck-through type.  The 
amendments shall become effective immediately.  Because the 
amendments were not published for comment previously, interested 
persons shall have seventy-five days from the date of this opinion in 
which to file comments with the Court.2 
 
 
2.  All comments must be filed with the Court on or before 
April 18, 2023, as well as a separate request for oral argument if 
the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral 
argument, which may be scheduled in this case.  If filed by an 
attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must 
be electronically filed via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (Portal).  
If filed by a nonlawyer or a lawyer not licensed to practice in 
Florida, the comment may be, but is not required to be, filed via the 
Portal.  Any person unable to submit a comment electronically must 
mail or hand-deliver the originally signed comment to the Florida 
Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval Street, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927; no additional copies are required 
or will be accepted. 
 
- 3 - 
For the benefit of the public, of those subject to continuing 
judicial education requirements, and of those inclined to comment 
on the rule amendments we make today, a brief response to the 
dissent’s comments on “fairness and diversity” is in order. 
Amended rule 2.320(b)(2) leaves intact the existing 
requirement that, for each reporting cycle, 4 of each judge’s 30 
continuing education hours “must be in the area of judicial ethics.”  
The amendment adds new language to the rule text to specify that, 
to satisfy this judicial ethics content requirement, a judge can 
receive credit for “portions of approved courses which pertain to 
judicial professionalism, opinions of the Judicial Ethics Advisory 
Committee, and the Code of Judicial Conduct.”  The amendment 
deletes existing language saying that: “Approved courses in fairness 
and diversity also can be used to fulfill the judicial ethics 
requirement.”  The newly added language identifies course content 
that unquestionably pertains to the subject of judicial ethics; by 
contrast, the pre-amendment rule text was overbroad, because 
course content about “fairness and diversity” might or might not 
pertain to judicial ethics. 
 
- 4 - 
Although we have deleted from rule 2.320(b)(2) the 
unilluminating and frequently contested term “fairness and 
diversity,” course content on procedural fairness and 
nondiscrimination will continue to qualify for ethics credit.  The 
revised rule text explicitly says that ethics credit will be given for 
classes on the Code of Judicial Conduct.  And a review of the 
relevant Code provisions shows that civility and equal regard for the 
legal rights of every person are at the heart of judicial 
professionalism.  Consider these examples: 
Canon 3.B.(4) says: 
A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to 
litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with 
whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall 
require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court 
officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and 
control. 
 
Canon 3.B.(5) says (in pertinent part): 
A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or 
prejudice.  A judge shall not, in the performance of 
judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or 
prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice 
based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, 
age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, and 
shall not permit staff, court officials, and others subject 
to the judge’s direction and control to do so. 
 
 
- 5 - 
Canon 3.B.(6) says (in pertinent part): 
A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the 
judge to refrain from manifesting, by words, gestures, or 
other conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, 
religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual 
orientation, or socioeconomic status, against parties, 
witnesses, counsel, or others. 
 
Finally, Canon 3.B.(7) says (in pertinent part): 
A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal 
interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right 
to be heard according to law. 
 
Our Court remains unwavering in its commitment to the 
foundational principles of civility, due process, and equal justice 
under law.  Any contrary suggestion in the dissent is unjustified. 
It is so ordered. 
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, 
and FRANCIS, JJ., concur. 
LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion. 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER 
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS. 
 
LABARGA, J., dissenting. 
 
On its own motion, this Court has expressly removed the 
terms “fairness” and “diversity” from the course topics that Florida’s 
state court judges may use to satisfy their continuing judicial 
education ethics requirement.  While I appreciate the majority’s 
 
- 6 - 
observation that the existing rules should be sufficient to cover 
appropriate ethics courses on these topics, this unilateral action 
potentially eliminates vital educational content from our state 
courts’ judicial education curriculum and does so in a manner 
inconsistent with this Court’s years-long commitment to fairness 
and diversity education.  Moreover, it paves the way for a complete 
dismantling of all fairness and diversity initiatives in the State 
Courts System.  I strenuously dissent. 
As recently as August 2020, this Court issued an 
administrative order noting “the State Courts System’s efforts to 
eliminate from court operations bias that is based on race, gender, 
ethnicity, age, disability, financial status, or any characteristic that 
is without legal relevance.”  In re Standing Committee on Fairness 
and Diversity, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-72 (Aug. 3, 2020).  
This order, relating to the work of the Supreme Court Standing 
Committee on Fairness and Diversity, directed the Standing 
Committee to, “[i]n consultation with the Florida Court Education 
Council, develop a curriculum for a virtual implicit bias judicial 
education program.”  Id. (emphasis added).  Particularly relevant to 
the time, the order specified that the “curriculum should 
 
- 7 - 
incorporate specific strategies that judges and court staff can use to 
identify and prevent implicit bias in the adjudication of cases 
during times of pandemic, natural disasters, and other unexpected 
events that may lead to closure or alternative means of holding 
court.”  Id.   
 
In July 2021, the administrative order was amended to clarify 
the role of the Florida Court Education Council.  The amended 
order included the following: “The efforts of the Standing Committee 
shall be designed to inculcate the judicial duty to treat every litigant 
and lawyer in an unbiased and respectful manner, to never 
stereotype any individuals who come before Florida’s courts, and to 
administer equal justice to all under our constitutional system.”  In 
re Standing Committee on Fairness and Diversity, Fla. Admin. Order 
No. AOSC20-72, Amend. 1 (July 2, 2021).  To that end, the 
Standing Committee was tasked with “[p]rovid[ing] input to the 
Florida Court Education Council as the Council develops and 
delivers curricula for judicial education programs on bias 
elimination.”  Id. (emphasis added).   
Now, inexplicably, and without prior input from relevant 
parties, a mere one-and-a-half years later, this Court sees fit to 
 
- 8 - 
eliminate an express consideration of fairness and diversity from 
the continuing judicial education curriculum.  As stressed by the 
majority, the canons in the Code of Judicial Conduct do prohibit 
bias and prejudice in their various forms.  However, the purpose of 
providing express consideration to fairness and diversity education 
has been to complement the canons, and in the hopes of addressing 
the extremely complex issue that is discrimination, to educate the 
judiciary on strategies for recognizing and combatting 
discrimination.  For these reasons, such a decision at this level of 
institutional gravity is, in my opinion, unwarranted, untimely, and 
ill-advised. 
 
I respectfully dissent. 
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial 
Administration 
 
 
 
- 9 - 
APPENDIX 
 
Rule 2.320. 
Continuing Judicial Education 
 
 
(a) [No Change]  
 
 
(b) Education Requirements. 
 
 
 
(1) [No Change]  
 
 
 
(2) Minimum Requirements. Each judge and justice shall 
complete a minimum of 30 credit hours of approved judicial 
education programs every 3 years. Beginning January 1, 2012, 4 
hours must be in the area of judicial ethics; prior to that date, 2 
hours in the area of judicial ethics are required. The portions of 
aApproved courses which pertain to judicial professionalism, 
opinions of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, and the Code of 
Judicial Conductin fairness and diversity also can be used to fulfill 
the judicial ethics requirement. In addition to the 30-hour 
requirement, eEvery judge new to a level of trial court must 
complete the Florida Judicial College program in that judge’s first 
year of judicial service following selection to that level of court; 
every new appellate court judge or justice must, within 2 years 
following selection to that level of court, complete an approved 
appellate-judge program. Every new appellate judge who has never 
been a trial judge or who has never attended Phase I of the Florida 
Judicial College as a magistrate must also attend Phase I of the 
Florida Judicial College in that judge’s first year of judicial service 
following the judge’s appointment. Judges and justices will receive 
credit for attending these programs. Credit for teaching a course for 
which mandatory judicial education credit is available will be 
allowed on the basis of 2 ½ hours’ credit for each instructional hour 
taught, up to a maximum of 5 hours per year. 
 
 
 
(3) [No Change]  
 
 
(c) Course Approval. The Florida Court Education Council, in 
consultation with the judicial conferences, shall develop approved 
courses for each state court jurisdiction. Judges may receive credit 
 
- 10 - 
for cCourses offered by other judicial and legal education entities 
subject to course approval by the Florida Court Education Council 
or the Office of Court Education within the Office of the State 
Courts Administrator must be approved by the council before they 
may be submitted for credit. 
 
 
(d) [No Change]  
 
 
(e) Reporting Requirements and Sanctions. The Florida 
Court Education Council shall establish a procedure for reporting 
annually to the chief justice on compliance with this rule. Each 
judge shall submit to tThe Office of Court Education Division of 
within the Office of the State Courts Administrator shall monitor 
compliance with this rulean annual report showing the judge’s 
attendance at approved courses. Failure to comply with the 
requirements of this rule will be reported to the chief justice of the 
Florida supreme court for such administrative action as deemed 
necessary. The chief justice may consider a judge’s or justice’s 
failure to comply as neglect of duty and report the matter to the 
Judicial Qualifications Commission.