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, under 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 on 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 on 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, under
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
felony, drug court, and worthless check cases), circuit civil
(includes matters involving claims of $50,000.01 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 $50,000,
landlord-tenant, and civil traffic infraction cases).

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

(i) The availability and use of county court
judges in circuit court.

(ii) The availability and use of senior judges
to serve on a particular court.
(iii) The availability and use of magistrates
and hearing officers.

(iv) The extent of use of alternative dispute
resolution.

(v) The number of jury trials.

(vi) Foreign language interpretations.

(vii) The geographic size and composition of a
circuit, including travel times between courthouses in a particular
jurisdiction and the presence of community facilities such as
correctional facilities, medical facilities, and universities.

(viii) Prosecutorial practices and law
enforcement activities in the court’s jurisdiction, including any
substantial commitment of additional resources for state attorneys,
public defenders, and local law enforcement.

(ix) The availability and use of case-related
support staff and case management policies and practices.

(x) Caseload trends.

(C) The Commission on Trial Court Performance
and Accountability must 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 must include the following factors:

(i) workload factors to be considered
include: trends in case filings; trends in changes in case mix; trends
in the backlog of cases ready for assignment and disposition; trends
in the relative weight of cases disposed on the merits per judge; and
changes in statutes, rules of court, and case law that directly or
indirectly impact judicial workload.

(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 standards; and a court’s use 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 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 exceeds the weighted case disposition
threshold.

(i) The relative weight of cases disposed on
the merits must be determined based on 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 under subdivision (b)(2)(B)(ii), and divided by 100.

(ii) The Commission on District Court of
Appeal Performance and Accountability must 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
must be subject to the approval of the supreme court.

(c) Additional Trial Court Workload Factors. Because
summary statistics reflective of the above criteria do not fully
measure judicial workload, the supreme court will receive and
consider, among other things, information about the time to
perform and volume of the following activities, which also comprise
the judicial workload of a particular jurisdiction:

(1) review appellate court decisions;

(2) research legal issues;

(3) review briefs and memoranda of law;

(4) participate in court conferences on pending cases;

(5) hear and dispose of motions;

(6) prepare correspondence, orders, judgments, and
decisional opinions;
(7) review presentence investigative reports and
predispositional reports in delinquency and dependency cases;

(8) review petitions and motions for post-conviction
relief;

(9) perform administrative duties relating to the court;

(10) participate in meetings with those involved in the
justice system;

(11) participate in educational programs designed to
increase the competency and efficiency of the judiciary;

(12) preside over problem-solving courts;

(13) use, as well as participate in the development of and
training on, technology systems; and

(14) participate in election canvassing boards.

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

(1) The state courts administrator will distribute a
compilation of summary statistics and projections to each chief
judge at a time designated by the chief justice.

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

(A) Trial Courts. Each chief judge will then
consider these criteria, additional workload factors, and summary
statistics, and submit to the chief justice a request for any
increases or decreases under article V, section 9, of the Florida
Constitution that the chief judge feels are required.

(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 must prepare a report
showing the need for a new judge based on the application of the
criteria in this rule.

(i) Any request for a new district court judge
must be submitted to the District Court of Appeal Budget
Commission for review and approval.

(ii) The chief judge of a district court of
appeal must submit the report showing the need together with the
approval of the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission to the
chief justice.

(3) The chief justice and the state courts administrator
may then confer with the chief judge and other representatives of
the court submitting the request as well as representatives of The
Florida Bar and the public to gather additional information and
clarification about the need in the particular jurisdiction.

(4) The chief justice will submit recommendations to
the supreme court, which will thereafter certify to the legislature its
findings and recommendations concerning such need.

(5) The supreme court, in conjunction with the
certification process under this rule, must 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

1983 Adoption. Article V, section 9, of the Florida
Constitution authorizes the establishment, by rule, of 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. Each year since the
adoption of article V in 1972, this court, pursuant to section 9, has
certified its determination of need to the legislature based upon
factors and criteria set forth in our certification decisions. This rule
is intended to set forth criteria and workload factors previously
developed, adopted, and used in this certification process, as
summarized and specifically set forth in In re Certificate of Judicial
Manpower, 428 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1983); In re Certificate of Judicial
Manpower, 396 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1981); and In re Certification, 370
So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1979).
2004 Amendment. Subdivision (b)(2) was amended to provide
more specific criteria and workload factors to be used in
determining the need for increasing or decreasing the number of
judges on the District Courts of Appeal. In addition, the caseload
level at which the court will presume that there is a need for an
additional appellate judge has been increased from 250 to 350
filings per judge.
2006 Amendment. Subdivision (a) is amended to be
consistent with the 2006 adoption of rule 2.036 [renumbered as
2.241 in 2006] relating to the criteria for determining the necessity
and for increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts and
judicial circuits, pursuant to article V, section 9, Florida
Constitution. The Court adopts the Commission on District Court of
Appeal Performance and Accountability’s conclusion that a single
case filing threshold is insufficient to capture the intricacies that
make up judicial workload in the district courts. The Commission’s
alternative to the 350-filings-per-judge threshold is a weighted case
dispositions per judge, which the Commission determined to be a
meaningful measure of judicial workload.
The relative weighted caseload is determined by surveying a
representative sample of judges on the relative degree of judicial
effort put into each category of cases based upon an agreed typical
case having a value of 100. Each category was assigned a relative
weight number based upon the statewide average of the weight
calculated through the survey. These weights were then applied to
each court’s dispositions on the merits to determine the weighted
caseload value and divided by 100.
This approach accommodates the important distinction
between the number of cases filed and the judicial effort required to
dispose of those cases. While the number of cases continues to
increase, trends in the types of cases filed have dramatically
changed the nature of the work that the district court judges
handle. The weighted caseload approach not only accommodates
the differences in types of cases by measuring their relative
workload demands for judges, but it also accommodates the work
performed by legal support staff.
Subdivision (b)(2)(B) establishes a presumption that the
relative weight of cases disposed on the merits should fall below
280 per judge. Chief judges must consider the impact that the
addition of a judge would have on this measure when applied to
their courts’ dispositions on the merits for the previous year.
Every four years the Commission will measure the relative
judicial effort associated with the cases disposed on the merits for
the year immediately preceding. This will be accomplished by
asking a representative sample of judges to approximate the relative
weight of cases in relation to a mid-ranked case. The resulting
weights will then be applied to each court’s dispositions on the
merits to determine the weighted caseload value per judge.
2013 Amendment. Subdivision (d)(5) was added to ensure the
certification process under rule 2.240(d) is conducted in
conjunction with the related process for determinations regarding
increases, decreases, or redefinition of appellate districts and
judicial circuits under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration
2.241.