DETERMINATION OF THE NECESSITY TO INCREASE, DECREASE, OR REDEFINE JUDICIAL CIRCUITS AND APPELLATE DISTRICTS

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to establish uniform criteria for the supreme court’s determination of the necessity for increasing, decreasing, or redefining judicial circuits and appellate districts as required by article V, section 9, of the Florida Constitution. This rule also provides for an assessment committee and a certification process to assist the court in certifying to the legislature its findings and recommendations concerning such need.

(b) Certification Process. A certification process shall be completed in conjunction with the supreme court’s annual determination regarding the need for judges under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240(d) and in accordance with the following:

(1) The supreme court shall certify a necessity to increase, decrease, or redefine judicial circuits and appellate districts when it determines that the judicial process is adversely affected by circumstances that present a compelling need for the certified change.

(2) The supreme court may certify a necessity to increase, decrease, or redefine judicial circuits and appellate districts when it determines that the judicial process would be improved significantly by the certified change.

(3) 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.

(4) Each chief judge shall consider criteria as may apply under rules 2.241(c) and 2.241(d), as well as any other relevant factors, and shall inform the chief justice of any perceived need to increase, decrease, or redefine the state’s judicial circuits or appellate districts.

(5) Having been advised in these matters by the chief justice and taking into consideration other relevant factors, the supreme court, finding cause for further inquiry, may appoint an assessment committee to consider the capacity of the courts to effectively fulfill their constitutional and statutory responsibilities as well as any attendant need to increase, decrease, or redefine appellate districts and judicial circuits.

(6) If an assessment committee is appointed, the committee shall confer with the chief judges and other representatives of appellate districts and judicial circuits, district court of appeal and/or trial court budget commissions, The Florida Bar, and the public for purposes of gathering additional information regarding matters within its charge and shall submit written recommendations to the supreme court.

(7) The supreme court shall consider the assessment committee’s recommendations within a timeframe it deems appropriate.

(8) Whether or not an assessment committee is appointed, the supreme court shall balance the potential impact and disruption caused by changes in judicial circuits and appellate districts against the need to address circumstances that limit the quality and efficiency of, and public confidence in, the judicial process. Given the impact and disruption that can arise from any alteration in judicial structure, prior to recommending a change in judicial circuits or appellate districts, the supreme court shall consider less disruptive adjustments including, but not limited to, the addition of judges, the creation of branch locations, geographic or subject-matter divisions within judicial circuits or appellate districts, deployment of new technologies, and increased ratios of support staff per judge.

(c) Criteria for Judicial Circuits. The following criteria shall be considered when determining the necessity for increasing, decreasing, or redefining judicial circuits as required by article V, section 9, of the Florida Constitution:

(1) Effectiveness. Factors to be considered for this criterion include the extent to which each court:

(A) expedites appropriate cases;

(B) handles its workload in a manner permitting its judges to prepare written decisions when warranted;

(C) is capable of accommodating changes in statutes or case law impacting workload or court operations; and

(D) handles its workload in a manner permitting its judges to serve on committees for the judicial system.

(2) Efficiency. Factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which each court:

(A) stays current with its caseload, as indicated by measurements such as the clearance rate;

(B) adjudicates a high percentage of its cases within the time standards set forth in the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration and has adequate procedures to ensure efficient, timely disposition of its cases; and

(C) uses its resources, case management techniques, and technologies to improve the efficient adjudication of cases, research of legal issues, and issuance of decisions.

(3) Access to Courts. Factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which:

(A) litigants, including self-represented litigants, have meaningful access consistent with due process; and

(B) decisions of a court are available in a timely and efficient manner.

(4) Professionalism. Factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which each court:

(A) handles workload issues in a manner permitting its judges adequate time and resources to participate in continuing judicial education and to stay abreast of the law in order to maintain a qualified judiciary;

(B) is capable of recruiting and retaining qualified staff; and

(C) affords staff adequate time to participate in continuing education and specialized training.

(5) Public Trust and Confidence. Factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which each court:

(A) handles workload in a manner permitting its judges adequate time for community involvement;

(B) affords access to open court and other public proceedings for the general public;

(C) fosters public trust and confidence given its geography and demographic composition; and

(D) attracts a diverse group of well-qualified applicants for judicial vacancies, including applicants from all counties within the circuit.

(6) Additional criteria. Such other factors as are regularly considered when making a determination with respect to the need for additional judges under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240(b)(1) and (c).

(d) Criteria for District Courts. The following criteria shall be considered when determining the necessity for increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts as required by article V, section 9, of the Florida Constitution:

(1) Effectiveness. Factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which each court:

(A) expedites appropriate cases;

(B) handles workload in a manner permitting its judges to prepare written opinions when warranted;

(C) functions in a collegial manner;

(D) handles workload in a manner permitting its judges to develop, clarify, and maintain consistency in the law within that district, including consistency between written opinions and per curiam affirmances without written opinions;

(E) handles its workload in a manner permitting its judges to harmonize decisions of their court with those of other district courts or to certify conflict when appropriate;

(F) handles its workload in a manner permitting its judges to have adequate time to review all decisions rendered by the court;

(G) is capable of accommodating changes in statutes or case law impacting workload or court operations; and

(H) handles its workload in a manner permitting its judges to serve on committees for the judicial system.

(2) Efficiency. Factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which each court:

(A) stays current with its caseload, as indicated by measurements such as the clearance rate;

(B) adjudicates a high percentage of its cases within the time standards set forth in the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration and has adequate procedures to ensure efficient, timely disposition of its cases; and

(C) uses its resources, case management techniques, and other technologies to improve the efficient adjudication of cases, research of legal issues, and preparation and distribution of decisions.

(3) Access to Appellate Review. Factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which:

(A) litigants, including self-represented litigants, have meaningful access to a district court for mandatory and discretionary review of cases, consistent with due process;

(B) litigants are afforded efficient access to the court for the filing of pleadings and for oral argument when appropriate; and

(C) orders and opinions of a court are available in a timely and efficient manner.

(4) Professionalism. Factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which each court:

(A) handles its workload in a manner permitting its judges adequate time and resources to participate in continuing judicial education opportunities and to stay abreast of the law in order to maintain a qualified judiciary;

(B) is capable of recruiting and retaining qualified staff; and

(C) affords staff adequate time to participate in continuing education and specialized training.

(5) Public Trust and Confidence. Factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which each court:

(A) handles its workload in a manner permitting its judges adequate time for community involvement;

(B) provides adequate access to oral arguments and other public proceedings for the general public within its district;

(C) fosters public trust and confidence given its geography and demographic composition; and

(D) attracts diverse group of well-qualified applicants for judicial vacancies, including applicants from all circuits within the district.

(e) Results of determination. Only upon the supreme court’s finding that a need exists for increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts and judicial circuits, shall the court, acting prior to the next regular session of the legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and recommendations concerning such need.