Opinion ID: 1702660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Recommendation Eleven:

Text: While there should not be a per se prohibition against the use of senior judges in complex cases, guidelines regarding the assignment of senior judges should provide that, absent an agreement by the litigants, chief judges are encouraged not to assign senior judges to preside over complex cases. Florida Rules of Court do not provide a definition of complex case. To clarify the concept, the committee reviewed legislation introduced during the 2000 session of the Florida Legislature. [14] That bill defined the following actions as complex cases:  antitrust claims;  construction defect claims involving multiple parties;  shareholder derivative claims;  environmental or toxic claims involving multiple parties;  mass tort claims;  claims involving class actions; and  insurance coverage claims arising out of any claims listed above. The committee observed that this itemization is not exhaustive, and suggests that other kinds of cases can be complex, including:  medical malpractice claims;  product liability claims;  environment torts without multiple parties; and,  aviation actions. The committee was also asked to address the question of whether the amount of time a senior judge serves within a year should be limited. The committee concluded that it should not. The committee noted that senior judges are compensated at a level far less than can be earned in private practice, and that many senior judges continue to serve out of an abiding commitment to public service. Where there is a demonstrated need for qualified judges, and a senior judge is available, artificial limitations on the extent of service should not prevent workload from being addressed by a senior judge. The state and citizens of Florida benefit from this service. The constitutional language regarding senior judge service refers to temporary duty, [15] and Florida Statutes purport to limit assignments to sixty days service in a year without approval of the chief justice. [16] In keeping with these provisions, the existing practice has been to issue assignment orders for specified time periods. In the view of the committee, an order of a chief justice assigning a retired judge or justice to service for a period of one year or three years satisfies the statutory requirement and is, furthermore, within the constitutional authority of a chief justice. Repeated re-assignments are not necessary. The committee also suggests that the statutory provision be considered for revision.