2.241. Determination of the Necessity to Increase, Decrease or Redefine

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to establish uniform criteria for the supreme court’s determination of necessity for increasing, decreasing, or redefining 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 both in certifying to the legislature its findings and recommendations concerning such need and in making its own rules affecting appellate court structure and jurisdiction.

(b) Assessment Committee. At least once during every eight-year period, beginning after review year 2006, the chief justice shall appoint a committee that shall assess the capacity of the district courts to effectively fulfill their constitutional and statutory duties. The committee shall make a recommendation to the supreme court concerning the decisions that it should make during the process described in subdivision (c).

(1) The assessment committee shall consist of three members from each district: one attorney, one district judge, and one circuit judge.

(2) The committee should be appointed no later than August 31 of the year prior to the review year. It must report its recommendations to the chief justice in writing no later than July 1 of the review year.

(3) The chief justice shall select the chair of the committee.

(4) Prior to the preparation of its report, the committee shall solicit written input from the public and shall hold at least one public hearing.

(5) The Office of the State Courts Administrator, in consultation with the clerks and marshals of the district courts of appeal, shall provide staff support to the committee.

(6) The chief justice shall submit the committee’s recommendations to the supreme court. On or before November 15 of the review year, the supreme court shall certify to the legislature its findings and recommendations.

(c) Certification Process. The certification process balances the potential impact and disruption caused by changes in appellate districts against the need to address circumstances that limit the quality and efficiency of, and public confidence in, the appellate review process. Given the impact and disruption that can arise from any alteration in judicial structure, prior to recommending a change in districts, the assessment committee and 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 districts, deployment of new technologies, and increased ratios of support staff per judge.

(1) The supreme court shall certify a necessity to increase, decrease, or redefine appellate districts when it determines that the appellate review 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 appellate districts when it determines that the appellate review process would be improved significantly by the certified change.

(d) Criteria. The following criteria shall be considered by the supreme court and the assessment committee:

(1) Effectiveness. The factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which:

(A) each court expedites appropriate cases;

(B) each court’s workload permits its judges to prepare written opinions when warranted;

(C) each court functions in a collegial manner;

(D) each court’s workload permits 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) each court’s workload permits its judges to harmonize decisions of their court with those of other district courts or to certify conflict when appropriate;

(F) each court’s workload permits its judges to have adequate time to review all decisions rendered by the court;

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

(H) each court’s workload permits its judges to serve on management committees for that court and the judicial system.

(2) Efficiency. The factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which:

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

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

(C) each court utilizes 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. The 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. The factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which:

(A) each court’s workload permits its judges to have 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) each court is capable of recruiting and retaining qualified staff attorneys, clerk’s office staff, and other support staff; and

(C) each court’s staff has adequate time to participate in continuing education and specialized training opportunities.

(5) Public Trust and Confidence. The factors to be considered for this criterion are the extent to which:

(A) each court’s workload permits its judges to have adequate time to conduct outreach to attorneys and the general public within the district;

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

(C) each court’s geographic territory fosters public trust and confidence;

(D) each court’s demographic composition fosters public trust and confidence; and

(E) each court attracts an adequate, diverse group of well-qualified applicants for judicial vacancies within its district, including applicants from all circuits within the district.

District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction Committee Notes 2006 Adoption. Article V, section 9 of the Florida constitution states that:

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. If the supreme court finds that a need exists for . . . increasing, decreasing or redefining appellate districts . . . , it shall, prior to the next regular session of the legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and recommendations concerning such need.

(Emphasis added.) Thus, the constitution uses only “need” when describing the uniform criteria for certifying additional judges, but uses both “necessity” and “need” when describing the uniform criteria for increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts. The supreme court has never determined whether this language compels differing tests for the two certifications. Subdivision (c) of this rule uses the phrase “certify a necessity.” The Committee on District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction determined that the two standards set forth in that subdivision recognize the supreme court’s obligation to recommend a change to the structure of the district courts when circumstances reach the level of necessity that compels a change, but also recognize the court’s discretion to recommend a change to the structure of the district courts when improvements are needed.

The criteria set forth in this rule are based on studies of the workload, jurisdiction, and performance of the appellate courts, and the work of the Committee on District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction in 2005. In establishing these criteria, substantial reliance was placed on empirical research conducted by judicial branch committees and on other statistical data concerning cases, caseloads, timeliness of case processing, and manner for disposition of cases, collected by the Office of the State Courts Administrator Office as required by section 25.075, Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.030(e)(2).

The workload and jurisdiction committee considered the impact of computer technology on appellate districts. It is clear that, at this time or in the future, technology can be deployed to allow litigants efficient access to a court for filing of pleadings and for participation in oral argument, and that it can expand the general public’s access to the courts. It is possible that technology will substantially alter the appellate review process in the future and that appellate courts may find that technology permits or even requires different districting techniques. This rule was designed to allow these issues to be addressed by the assessment committee and the supreme court without mandating any specific approach.

The five basic criteria in subdivision (d) are not listed in any order of priority. Thus, for example, the workload and jurisdiction committee did not intend efficiency to be a more important criterion than engendering public trust and confidence.

Subdivision (d)(2)(A) recognizes that the court currently provides the legislature with an annual measurement of the appellate courts’ “clearance rate,” which is the ratio between the number of cases that are resolved during a fiscal year and the new cases that are filed during the same period. Thus, a clearance rate of one hundred percent reflects a court that is disposing of pending cases at approximately the same rate that new cases arrive. Given that other measurements may be selected in the future, the rule does not mandate sole reliance on this measurement.

Subdivision (d)(5)(E) recognizes that a district court’s geographic territory may be so large that it limits or discourages applicants for judicial vacancies from throughout the district and creates the perception that a court’s judges do not reflect the makeup of the territory.