In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240

Supreme Court of Florida
____________

No. SC2024-1459
____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF GENERAL
PRACTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.240.

October 31, 2024

PER CURIAM.

In response to a request by the Chief Justice, the Commission

on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability has

submitted a report proposing additional rule factors to assist in the

determination of judicial need and clarifications of existing rule

language regarding the presumption of judicial need. See In re

Comm’n on Dist. Ct. of Appeal Performance & Accountability, Fla.

Admin. Order No. AOSC22-24 (July 12, 2022). As recommended by

the Commission, we amend (on our own motion) Florida Rule of

General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240 (Determination

of Need for Additional Judges). 1 The Court thanks the Commission

1. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 9, Fla. Const.
for its work and assistance.

Subdivision (b)(2)(A) of rule 2.240 provides certain factors that

must be considered when determining whether to certify the need

for increasing or decreasing the number of judges on a district court

of appeal. Within the effectiveness factors, we now add

consideration of the extent to which each judge has adequate time

to stay informed of changes in the law and to use, as well as

participate in the development of and training on, technology

systems. And within the professionalism factors, we now add

consideration of the extent to which judges have time to participate

in appropriate community activities for purposes that include

promoting public trust and confidence in the courts.

Next, we delete language in subdivision (b)(2)(B) to simplify

and clarify the presumption of a need for an additional judgeship in

any district court of appeal.

Finally, we adjust monetary amounts included in subdivision

(b)(1)(A) to reflect the current county and circuit courts’ civil

jurisdiction. See § 34.01, Fla. Stat. (2024).

Rule 2.240 is amended as reflected in the appendix to this

opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are

-2-
indicated by struck-through type. The amendments are effective

immediately. Because the amendments were not published for

comment previously, interested persons have 75 days from the date

of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court. 2

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS,
FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial
Administration

2. All comments must be filed with the Court on or before
January 14, 2025, 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-
APPENDIX

RULE 2.240. DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
JUDGES

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to set forth uniform
criteria used by the supreme court in determining the need for
additional judges, except supreme court justices, and the necessity
for decreasing the number of judges, pursuant tounder article V,
section 9, Florida Constitution. These criteria form the primary
basis for the supreme court’s determination of need for additional
judges. Unforeseen developments, however, may have an impact
upon the judiciary resulting in needs which cannot be foreseen or
predicted by statistical projections. The supreme court, therefore,
may also consider any additional information found by it to be
relevant to the process. In establishing criteria for the need for
additional appellate court judges, substantial reliance has been
placed on the findings and recommendations of the Commission on
District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability. See In re
Report of the Comm’n on Dist. Court of Appeal Performance and
Accountability-Rule of Judicial Admin. 2.035, 933 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.
2006).

(b) Criteria.

(1) Trial Courts.

(A) Assessment of judicial need at the trial court
level is based primarily upon the application of case weights to
circuit and county court caseload statistics supplied to the Office of
the State Courts Administrator by the clerks of the circuit courts,
pursuant tounder rule 2.245, Florida Rules of General Practice and
Judicial Administration. Such case weights provide a quantified
measure of judicial time spent on case-related activity, translating
judicial caseloads into judicial workload by factoring in the relative
complexity by case type in the following manner:

(i) The circuit court case weights are applied to
forecasted case filings, which include circuit criminal (includes

-4-
felony, drug court, and worthless check cases), circuit civil
(includes matters involving claims of $350,000.01 and above),
family (includes domestic relations, juvenile dependency, and
juvenile delinquency cases), and probate (includes guardianship,
mental health, and trust cases).

(ii) The county court case weights are applied
to forecasted filings, which include county criminal (includes
misdemeanor, violations of county and municipal ordinance,
worthless check, driving under the influence, and other criminal
traffic cases), and county civil (includes small claims, matters
involving claims ranging from $8,000.01 to $350,000, landlord-
tenant, and civil traffic infraction cases).

(B) Other factors may be utilizedused in the
determination of the need for one or more additional judges. These
factors include, but are not limited to, the following:

(i)-(x) [No Change]

(C) The Commission on Trial Court Performance and
Accountability shallmust review the trial court workload trends and
case weights and consider adjustments no less than every five
years.

(2) District Courts of Appeal.

(A) The criteria for determining the need to certify
the need for increasing or decreasing the number of judges on a
district court of appeal shallmust include the following factors:

(i) [No Change]

(ii) efficiency factors to be considered include: a
court’s ability to stay current with its caseload, as indicated by
measurements such as trend in clearance rate; trends in a court’s
percentage of cases disposed within the time standards set forth in
the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration and
explanation/justification for cases not resolved within the time

-5-
standards; and a court’s utilizationuse of resources, case
management techniques and technologies to maximize the efficient
adjudication of cases, research of legal issues, and preparation and
distribution of decisions.

(iii) effectiveness factors to be considered
include the extent to which each judge has adequate time to: stay
informed of changes in the law; thoroughly research legal issues,
review briefs and memoranda of law, participate in court
conferences on pending cases, hear and dispose of motions, and
prepare correspondence, orders, judgments and opinions; expedite
appropriate cases; prepare written opinions when warranted;
develop, clarify, and maintain consistency in the law within that
district; review all decisions rendered by the court; use, as well as
participate in the development of and training on, technology
systems; perform administrative duties relating to the court; and
participate in the administration of the justice system through work
in statewide committees.

(iv) professionalism factors to be considered
include: the extent to which judges report that they have time to
participate, including teaching, in education programs designed to
increase the competency and efficiency of the judiciary and justice
system as well as the competency of lawyers; provide guidance and
instruction for the professional development of court support staff;
and participate in appropriate community activities and activities of
the legal profession at both the state and local levels to improve the
relationship between the bench and bar, to enhance lawyer
professionalism, to promote public trust and confidence in the
courts, and to improve the administration of justice.

(B) The court will presume that there is a need for
an additional appellate court judgeship in any district for which a
request is made and where the relative weight of cases disposed on
the merits per judge would have exceededexceeds the weighted case
disposition threshold after application of the proposed additional
judge(s).

-6-
(i) The relative weight of cases disposed on the
merits shallmust be determined based upon case disposition
statistics supplied to the state courts administrator by the clerks of
the district courts of appeal, multiplied by the relative case weights
established pursuant tounder subdivision (b)(2)(B)(ii), and divided
by 100.

(ii) The Commission on District Court of Appeal
Performance and Accountability shallmust review the workload
trends of the district courts of appeal and consider adjustments in
the relative case weights and the weighted case disposition
threshold every four years. Any such recommended adjustment
shallmust be subject to the approval of the supreme court.

(c) [No Change]

(d) Certification Process. The process by which certification
of the need to increase or decrease the number of judges shallmust
include:

(1) [No Change]

(2) Each chief judge shallmust submit to the chief justice
a request for any increase or decrease in the number of judges in
accordance with the following:

(A) [No Change]

(B) District Courts. Each chief judge will then
consider the criteria of this rule and the summary statistics; if a
new judge is requested, the chief judge shallmust prepare a report
showing the need for a new judge based upon the application of the
criteria in this rule.
(i) Any request for a new district court judge
shallmust be submitted to the District Court of Appeal Budget
Commission for review and approval.

(ii) The chief judge of a district court of appeal
shallmust submit the report showing the need together with the

-7-
approval of the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission to the
chief justice.

(3)-(4) [No Change]

(5) The supreme court, in conjunction with the
certification process under this rule, shallmust also consider the
necessity for increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts
and judicial circuits as required by article V, section 9, of the
Florida Constitution and as set forth in Florida Rule of General
Practice and Judicial Administration 2.241.

Court Commentary

[No Change]

-8-