In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.320

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).
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.

-2-
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.

-3-
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.

-4-
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

-5-
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

-6-
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

-7-
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

-8-
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

-9-
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.

- 10 -