The Florida Supreme Court has certified the need for new judges across the state.
In the per curium opinion issued December 12, the court said it needs 23 additional circuit court judgeships, 25 additional county court judgeships and two additional district court judgeships on the Sixth District Circuit of Appeal.
“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,” the opinion states.
State law requires the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability to “review the trial court workload trends and case weights and circuits” and “consider adjustments no less than every five years.”
The study was done in conjunction with the National Center for State Courts, which has conducted judicial workload assessments in more than 30 states, including two previous Florida assessments that resulted in final reports issued in 2000 and 2016.
“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,” the opinion states. “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.”
The Supreme Court says it knows funding new judgeships is “a significant investment.”
“We are mindful of the Legislature’s challenge in addressing myriad state budget priorities with limited resources,” the opinion states. “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 Sixth District requested two additional judgeships. That district began work at the start of 2023 with nearly 1,700 cases transferred from two other district courts, and it says filings continue to grow.
“According to the chief judge, the current judge complement is insufficient to keep pace with this growing workload,” the opinion states. “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.”
On the other hand, the Second District has excess judges because of the addition of the sixth district and boundary changes resulting from that addition.
“The court continues to recommend that this excess capacity be addressed over time through attrition,” the opinion states. “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.”