In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges

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
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.

-2-
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.

-3-
secondary factors 4 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.

-4-
pandemic and recent jurisdictional threshold changes 5 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.

-5-
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 Courts 7 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).

-6-
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.

-7-
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

thresholds 9 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

-8-
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).

-9-
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 directed 13 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).

- 10 -
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

- 11 -
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).

- 12 -
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.

- 13 -
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.

- 14 -
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.

- 15 -
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.

- 16 -
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

- 17 -
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

- 18 -
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

- 19 -