In Re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges

Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC2024-1721

IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF NEED
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES.

December 12, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Consistent with the process set out in article V, section 9 of

the Florida Constitution, this opinion addresses the need to

increase or decrease the number of judges in fiscal year 2025-26

and certifies our “findings and recommendations concerning such

need” to the Florida Legislature. 1 We certify the need for 23

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
additional circuit court judgeships and 25 additional county court

judgeships, as identified in the appendix, as well as the need for two

additional district court judgeships on the Sixth District Court of

Appeal. We certify there is no need to decrease the number of

circuit court judgeships, county court judgeships, or district court

judgeships. However, we acknowledge excess judicial capacity in

the Second District Court of Appeal and recommend that the

Legislature address this excess 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.

I. TRIAL COURT JUDICIAL WORKLOAD ASSESSMENT

Under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial

Administration 2.240, this Court assesses trial court judicial need

“based primarily on the application of case weights to circuit and

county court caseload statistics.” The rule requires the

Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability to

“review the trial court workload trends and case weights and

circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular session of the
legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and
recommendations concerning such need.

-2-
consider adjustments no less than every five years.” As noted in

our certification opinion last year, this cyclical review was delayed

due to the impacts of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic and

jurisdictional threshold changes on the court data the Commission

relies on to determine case weight adjustments.2 After those

impacts subsided, the Court determined it was appropriate to

conduct a trial court workload assessment to ensure the case

weights—which had last been updated in 2016—accurately reflect

the current judicial workload.

To advance this effort, the Court directed the Commission to

“[m]anage and oversee all efforts needed to review, update, and

extend Florida’s trial court judicial workload model (case weights) to

address recent developments in statutory and case law and other

practices that impact judicial workload.” 3,4 The Office of the State

2. In re Certif. of Need for Add’l Judges, 375 So. 3d 204, 205
(Fla. 2023).

3. In re Commission on Trial Court Performance and
Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC22-36 (July 28, 2022).

4. This assessment builds upon our three previous efforts to
evaluate trial court judicial workload. See Florida Delphi-based
Weighted Caseload Project Final Report (Jan. 2000),
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/217995/file/DelphiF

-3-
Courts Administrator (OSCA) contracted with the National Center

for State Courts (NCSC) to assist the Commission with the

assessment. The NCSC has conducted judicial workload

assessments in more than 30 states, 5 including two previous

Florida assessments that resulted in final reports issued in 2000

and 2016.6

A. Judicial Workload Assessment Methodology

The Florida courts system implemented a multi-phase

methodology to assess the judicial workload of trial courts. The

methodology was both quantitative and qualitative in nature and

structured to allow for maximum circuit and county court judge

ullReport.pdf; Commission on Trial Court Performance &
Accountability, Judicial Resource Study Final Report (2007),
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/242776/file/
JRSReport_Introduction.pdf; Florida Judicial Workload Assessment
Final Report (May 16, 2016),
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/778447/file/Florida%
20Judicial%20Workload%20Assessment%20Final%20Report%2020
16.pdf.

5. See Workload Assessment, National Center for State
Courts, https://www.ncsc.org/consulting-and-research/areas-of-
expertise/court-management-and-performance/workload-
assessment (last visited Nov. 4, 2024).

6. See supra note 4.

-4-
participation. 7 A detailed discussion of the judicial workload

assessment methodology follows.

In October 2022, OSCA contracted with the NCSC to conduct

the trial court workload assessment. An administrative order

constituted a Judicial Needs Assessment Committee (JNAC)

comprised of 23 judges representing every judicial circuit to oversee

and guide the assessment. 8 To help define the scope of the project

and ensure its completion, the JNAC reviewed and approved all the

methodological steps of the assessment. Specific project elements

the JNAC reviewed and approved included the determinations of a

standard judge day and a standard judge year, identification of

case- and non-case-related activities, delineation of case-type

categories, administration of the time study process, administration

of the quality adjustment process, assignment of final proposed

7. Senior judges and quasi-judicial officers, including
magistrates, child support enforcement hearing officers, and civil
traffic infraction hearing officers, also participated in the
assessment. Capturing this workload helps document their
important contribution to the resolution of cases and will inform the
standards used to allocate quasi-judicial officers based on
workload.

8. In re Trial Court Judicial Needs Assessment Committee, Fla.
Admin. Order No. AOSC22-77 (Oct. 20, 2022).

-5-
case weights, and selection of a qualifying judicial threshold

methodology.

B. Time Study and Quality Adjustment Process

The workload assessment was performed in two stages: first, a

time study, and second, a quality adjustment process. 9 The formal

assessment process began with a one-month time study in which

circuit and county court judges recorded their time spent on case-

and non-case-related activities in a web-based application in five-

minute increments. 10 Statewide, 586 circuit court judges and 321

county court judges participated in the time study, a participation

rate of 99 percent.

The time study provided an empirically grounded basis for

analyzing judicial workload in each of Florida’s trial courts, as it

captured the actual amount of time judges spent on case- and non-

case-related activity each day, including time spent handling cases

9. See Florida Judicial Workload Assessment Final Report
(June 2024),
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/2438568/file/Judicia
l_Workload_Report_Final.pdf.

10. The time study occurred from September 18 through
October 15, 2023.

-6-
on and off the bench and any after-hours or weekend work.

Separately, OSCA provided counts of filings by case-type category

and court location. The NCSC used the time study and filings data

to calculate preliminary case weights based on the number of

minutes circuit and county court judges spent resolving cases

within each case-type category.

The quality adjustment process, like those used in previous

assessments, was designed to ensure that the final case weights for

circuit and county court judges incorporate adequate time for case

processing. This process included a statewide sufficiency of time

survey and a structured quality review of the preliminary case

weights by a set of experienced judges from across the state. The

quality adjustment process served an important role in the

workload assessment because the preliminary case weights derived

from the time study reflected data collected during a one-month

period only. This one-month period may not have captured the

variability that can occur throughout the year in certain case-type

categories or other factors affecting the time dedicated to handling

case-related activities during that period. Additionally, the

preliminary case weights did not account for whether sufficient time

-7-
was available to deliver quality performance. The quality

adjustment process, therefore, provided an opportunity to refine the

weights so they accurately allocate sufficient time for effective case

processing.

All circuit and county court judges were asked to complete a

sufficiency of time survey in October 2023. The survey asked

judges about the amount of time currently available to perform

various case-related and non-case-related tasks. Specifically,

within certain case-type categories, judges were asked to identify

tasks, if any, where additional time would improve the “quality of

justice.” The survey enabled judges to freely comment on their

workload. Seventy-one percent of circuit court judges and seventy-

three percent of county court judges completed the survey.

The second component of the quality adjustment process was

a series of Delphi11 quality adjustment group sessions with circuit

and county court judges in April 2024. A Delphi process has been

11. The Delphi method is a structured iterative process for
decision-making by a panel of experts; in this instance, judges. See
Delphi Method, RAND Corporation,
http://www.rand.org/topics/delphi-method.html (last visited Nov.
4, 2024).

-8-
used by each of Florida’s three previous workload assessments.12

During the current assessment, six Delphi groups, facilitated by

NCSC staff and comprised of six to eight judges representing

different circuit sizes, met to review and assess the preliminary case

weights. Each group focused on one of the following divisions of

court: circuit criminal, circuit civil/probate, family, juvenile, county

criminal, or county civil. Thirty-seven judges participated, with

each judge experienced in the division of court that was the focus of

the group. Considering the preliminary case weights and the

results of the sufficiency of time survey, the groups identified any

case-type categories and activities where additional time may be

needed to enhance performance and recommended corresponding

adjustments to the preliminary case weights. The groups ultimately

recommended case weight changes for 25 percent of the case-type

categories.

Throughout the quality adjustment process, judges reported

that many case-type categories are more complex now than during

the previous assessment, thus requiring additional time. Examples

12. See supra note 4.

-9-
of the areas where judges believed more time would improve the

overall quality of justice included the review and hearing of non-

dispositive pretrial motions in circuit and county criminal cases; the

review and hearing of dispositive pretrial motions in circuit civil

cases; the preparation of findings and orders related to trials and

final hearings in circuit family cases; and the hearing of cases

involving pro se litigants and interpreters. Judges also indicated,

among other things, that more time is needed for case management,

particularly in civil cases.13

The JNAC and the Commission, in April and May 2024,

respectively, approved the proposed case weights and the

recommendations advanced by the NCSC in its final report. This

Court adopted the proposed case weights in June 2024 and

directed OSCA staff to use the revised case weights starting with the

certification analysis for fiscal year 2025-26.

13. In 2021, this Court implemented differentiated case
management requirements to promote the timely resolution of civil
cases. See In re Comprehensive COVID-19 Emergency Measures for
Florida Trial Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-23, Amend. 10
(Mar. 9, 2021); see also In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc., 386
So. 3d 497, 500 (Fla. 2024); In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc.,
49 Fla. L. Weekly S289 (Dec. 5, 2024).

- 10 -
II. TRIAL COURT CERTIFICATION OF JUDICIAL NEED

As described above, the Court continues to use a verified

objective weighted caseload methodology as a primary basis for

assessing judicial need for the trial courts. Total annual workload

is calculated by multiplying a three-year average of forecasted

filings for each case-type category by the corresponding case weight,

then summing the workload across all case-type categories. 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.

Judgeship needs applications submitted by the chief judges of

the judicial circuits supplement the objective data. Those

applications provide the chief judges with an opportunity to

describe how secondary factors 14 are affecting the courts within

their judicial circuits. 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 to not

14. Other factors that may be used in the determination of
trial court judicial need are prescribed in Florida Rule of General
Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240(b)(1)(B) and (c).

- 11 -
certify the need to decrease judgeships in situations in which the

objective weighted caseload methodology alone would indicate

excess judicial capacity.

We have examined case filing data, reviewed the secondary

factors supplied by the chief judges as part of their judgeship

needs applications, and used the final case weights from the

workload assessment to evaluate judicial need. Applying this

methodology and using an objective threshold for evaluating when

judicial workload indicates a need for more or fewer judges, this

Court certifies the need for 48 additional trial court judgeships

statewide—23 in circuit court and 25 in county court. Our

specific certifications for circuit and county court judges are set

out in the appendix accompanying this opinion. We recommend

no decrease in circuit court judgeships and no decrease in county

court judgeships.

To arrive at our certifications, the Court accounted for the

relative needs of each circuit and county court as reflected in the

weighted caseload methodology, but we have not certified the need

for the full complement of judges indicated by that methodology.

Instead, based on several considerations, the Court has chosen to

- 12 -
adopt an approach that is more incremental but still reasonable

and fair.

The Court recognizes that funding new judgeships is a

significant investment, and we are mindful of the Legislature’s

challenge in addressing myriad state budget priorities with limited

resources. Further, the court system’s capacity to absorb

additional judges at one time is limited by factors such as

courthouse space, with expansion of courtrooms and chambers

subject to the availability of county funding. The Court also

recognizes that establishment of new judgeships results in

operational and potential fiscal impacts for justice-partner entities

such as the clerks of the circuit courts, state attorneys, and

public defenders. Finally, the court system requires some time to

establish workload trends using the newly adopted case weights.

It is for this same reason that the Court is necessarily cautious

about certifying the need to decrease judgeships, as we are not yet

able to determine trends that would indicate a sustained surplus

in judicial capacity.

The Court is committed to ensuring that the allocation of any

additional resources to the judicial branch budget results in

- 13 -
operational outcomes that benefit users of the court system.

Although there is not an increase in forecasted filings, the revised

case weights resulting from the comprehensive trial court

workload assessment demonstrate that many cases have become

more complex and require additional judicial engagement and

time to resolve—warranting additional judges. If the Legislature

elects to fund the judgeships certified in this opinion as an initial

step in addressing the increased workload of circuit and county

courts, this Court will use the new case weights to monitor the

impact of the new resources and evaluate outstanding need in

subsequent certification opinions under article V, section 9 of the

Florida Constitution.

III. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CERTIFICATION OF
JUDICIAL NEED

In furtherance of our constitutional obligation to determine the

State’s need for additional judges in fiscal year 2025-26, 15 this

opinion certifies the need for two additional district court

judgeships on the Sixth District Court of Appeal. In accordance

with Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration

15. See supra note 1.

- 14 -
2.240(b)(2), the Court continues to rely on a verified, objective

weighted caseload methodology—primarily based on the number of

cases disposed—as the main criterion for evaluating judicial need in

the district courts. This methodology also considers factors related

to workload, efficiency, effectiveness, and professionalism as

outlined in the rule.

A. Sixth District Court of Appeal Judicial Need

The Sixth District requested two additional judgeships. In its

request, the chief judge noted that the district court began its work

on January 1, 2023,16 with nearly 1,700 transferred cases from two

other district courts, and that filings in the district court continue

to grow. According to the chief judge, the current judge

complement is insufficient to keep pace with this growing workload.

Additionally, the district court is currently supported by a

temporarily assigned appellate judge from a neighboring district

court, an assignment that is not a long-term solution to the district

court’s workload challenges.

The chief judge of the Sixth District also noted that despite

16. See §§ 35.01, .044, Fla. Stat. (2023).

- 15 -
high caseloads, the judges and staff have made every effort to

properly execute their responsibilities. But they do so knowing that

trying to absorb this increased workload limits the time available for

the consideration of each case and the writing of opinions. This

Court shares the concerns of the chief judge about the potential for

negative effects resulting from continued high workload and

strained judicial resources. We find the workload for the Sixth

District and other secondary factors cited in the request from the

chief judge persuasive.

B. District Court of Appeal Excess Judicial Capacity

As addressed in previous certifications of need for additional

judges, 17 the Court recognizes excess judicial capacity in the

Second District Court of Appeal 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; therefore,

17. See In re Redefinition of App. Dists. & Certif. of Need for
Add’l App. Judges, 345 So. 3d 703, 706 (Fla. 2021); In re Certif. of
Need for Add’l Judges, 353 So. 3d 565, 568 (Fla. 2022); In re Certif.
of Need for Add’l Judges, 375 So. 3d at 205, 207-08.

- 16 -
we do not certify the need to decrease any district court judgeships.

To address the estimated excess judicial capacity in the

Second District, this Court recommends that during the 2025

Regular Session the Legislature consider enacting legislation that

provides for a 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 Second

District, the number of authorized judges shall be reduced by one.

We recommend that eventually, after attrition, there be 13 judges

authorized for the Second District.18

The goal of the Court’s recommended approach, consistent

with previous opinions, is to address excess district court judicial

capacity without prematurely ending an existing judge’s judicial

career. This approach reflects the policy embodied in the 2022 law

18. The Court previously recommended that, after attrition,
there be 12 judges authorized for the Second District. See Fla. SB
490 (2024) (died in Judiciary Committee) (proposed amendment to
§ 35.06, Fla. Stat.); Fla. HB 457 (died in Civil Justice Subcommittee)
(same). After further analysis, the Court now finds that the
appropriate target is 13 judges.

- 17 -
establishing the Sixth District and realigning the jurisdictional

boundaries of the first, second, and fifth appellate districts. 19

In recent years, the Court had noted excess judicial capacity

within the First District Court of Appeal, based on the same factors

articulated above for the Second District. 20 However, the Court has

since determined it would be prudent to continue to monitor the

workload in the First District and recommend no additional

changes to judgeships on that court at this time. The weighted

workload per judge is higher in the First District than in the Second

District and is more closely aligned with the other four district

courts.

IV. CONCLUSION

Having conducted both a quantitative and qualitative

assessment of trial court judicial workload, we certify the need for

48 additional trial court judges, consisting of 23 in circuit court and

25 in county court, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. We

also recommend no decrease in circuit court and county court

19. See supra note 17.

20. See supra note 17.

- 18 -
judgeships.

The recently completed judicial workload assessment was an

extensive effort involving the participation of more than 900 trial

court judges representing all 20 judicial circuits. The Court

extends its sincere thanks and appreciation to all who participated

in that assessment.

We certify the need for two additional judgeships in the Sixth

District. Finally, we recommend legislation to reduce the number of

statutorily authorized judgeships in 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, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS,
FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Judges

- 19 -
APPENDIX
Trial Court Need

Number of Number of
Circuit Circuit Court County County Court
Judges Certified Judges Certified
1 1 Walton 1
2 0 N/A 0
3 0 N/A 0
Clay 1
4 1 Duval 2
Nassau 1
Hernando 1
Lake 1
5 3
Marion 1
Sumter 1
6 0 N/A 0
7 2 N/A 0
8 0 N/A 0
Orange 1
9 1
Osceola 1
10 2 Polk 1
11 0 Miami-Dade 7
12 1 Manatee 1
13 0 Hillsborough 1
14 1 Bay 1
15 2 Palm Beach 2
16 0 N/A 0
17 0 N/A 0
18 1 N/A 0
19 1 N/A 0
20 7 Lee 1
Circuit County
23 25
Total Total

- 20 -