Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC21-1601
____________
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF GENERAL
PRACTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.240.
September 1, 2022
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed
amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial
Administration 2.240. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla.
Const. On November 17, 2021, the Trial Court Performance and
Accountability Commission (TCP&A) filed a report proposing
amendments to rules 2.240(b)(1)(B) and 2.240(c). The TCP&A’s
report was in response to a directive by this Court to study a 2016
report by the Judicial Needs Assessment Committee, to review rules
2.240(b)(1)(B) and 2.240(c) in light of that report, and to suggest
any necessary modifications. This Court previously published the
proposed amendments for comment, and no comments were
received.
Having considered the proposed amendments, the Court
hereby amends rule 2.240. New language is added to rule
2.240(b)(1)(B), which sets out a list of secondary factors this Court
may consider when determining if additional trial judges are needed
in a particular jurisdiction. Specifically, subdivision (b)(1)(B)(vii) is
amended to allow this Court to consider not only the geographical
size of a jurisdiction but also its composition, including the location
of relevant facilities within that jurisdiction. Subdivision
(b)(1)(B)(viii) is amended to allow the Court to consider not only law
enforcement practices that can affect judicial workload but also
prosecutorial practices.
Also, three new subdivisions are added to rule 2.240(c), which
sets out additional trial court workload factors for the Court to
consider in addition to the statistical criteria articulated in
subdivision (b). Specifically, new subdivisions (c)(12)-(14) now allow
the Court to consider the impact of problem-solving courts, the
development and use of technology and necessary training in its
use, and participation in election canvassing boards.
Accordingly, we hereby amend Florida Rule of General Practice
and Judicial Administration 2.240 (Determination of Need for
-2-
Additional Judges), as reflected in the appendix to this opinion.
New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated
by struck-through type. The amendments to the rule shall become
effective immediately.
It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, COURIEL, and
GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial
Administration
Honorable Diana L. Moreland, Chair, Commission of Trial Court
Performance and Accountability, Bradenton, Florida, and Lindsay
Hafford, Senior Court Operations Consultant, Office of the State
Courts Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
-3-
APPENDIX
RULE 2.240. DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
JUDGES
(a) [No Change]
(b) Criteria.
(1) Trial Courts.
(A) [No Change]
(B) Other factors may be utilized in the
determination of the need for one or more additional judges. These
factors include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) - (vi) [No Change]
(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 Llaw
enforcement activities in the court’s jurisdiction, including any
substantial commitment of additional resources for state
attorneys, public defenders, and local law enforcement.
(ix)-(x) [No Change]
(C) [No Change]
(2) [No Change]
(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
-4-
perform and volume of the following activities, which also comprise
the judicial workload of a particular jurisdiction:
(1) - (9) [No Change]
(10) participate in meetings with those involved in the
justice system; and
(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) [No Change]
Court Commentary
[No Change]
-5-