Opinion ID: 1831190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: assessment process

Text: We continue to use established objective measures to determine judicial caseload and the corresponding need for additional judges. Our analysis in past yearsand again todayhas not only been conservative but has strongly emphasized the need to use less expensive alternatives and to maximize efficiency before seeking more judges. We have steadily moved toward court models that rely heavily on alternatives and skilled support staff. At the trial level, these efficiencies have included hiring case managers who screen and organize cases to ensure that all legal matters in a case are fully in order before they go before a judge for a decision, guaranteeing the most efficient use of judge time. [2] Other efficiencies include the use of hearing officers and masters to hear matters such as disputes over child support and traffic tickets, and the use of mediation and other cost-saving measures, some discussed below, that have also reduced the need for certifying even more judges. All of these measures ensure that preliminary organizational and ministerial work is done by administrative staff, freeing trial judges to do their essential and unique taskadjudication. In the district courts of appeal, these models have included adding staff attorneys to conduct important research and to do preliminary screening and analysis of cases, [3] thus freeing the judges to devote their important and more costly time to their most crucial dutydeciding appeals. And, as will be discussed more fully below, these efforts are highlighted by a voluntary decision by the district court judges to increase their own recommended caseload by forty percent, in lieu of adding more judges. This decision reflects not only the dedication of these judges, but also the efficiencies they have achieved through the use of enhanced judicial staff. At the trial level, this Court has cooperated with the Legislature by adopting a trial-court certification system that the Legislature originally suggested, the Weighted Caseload System discussed more fully below. [4] We also stress that our certification is not a statement of what Florida State Courts subjectively want. Rather, it is a statement of what the State Courts objectively need to meet their workload, using accepted standards of measurement. In order to ensure that the certification is as objective as possible, the constitutional framers reposed this duty in the Supreme Court, which itself neither benefits nor loses by the Legislature's final decision on the issue. We also must acknowledge the very positive efforts of the Legislature in responding to the needs of the judicial branch. We understand the competing priorities lawmakers face in every session. Despite these pressures, the Legislature still has funded a number of new judgeships at the trial and appellate levels in recent years. It has also responded favorably to requests for additional resources that have greatly improved the efficiency of our courts. Florida legislators and their leadership deserve great credit for helping ensure that the Third Branch has been capable of providing a high standard of service to the communities of Florida. Our task today is to determine what is needed to maintain this standard of service to the people. In summary, to fulfill our constitutional mandate we have considered judgeship requests submitted by Florida's five appellate districts and twenty judicial circuits. We have examined the requests for new trial judges using the Weighted Caseload System and have analyzed various other judicial workload indicators including the appellate judges' willingness to accept a higher workload. Based on our review of these factors, we conclude that there is a need for four new judges in the district courts of appeal, fifty-one circuit judges, and thirty-three county judges. [5]