In Re: Judicial Circuit Assessment

Supreme Court of Florida
____________

No. SC2023-1708
____________

IN RE: JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ASSESSMENT.

December 21, 2023

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Constitution requires this Court to certify its

findings and recommendations to the Legislature if the Court finds

that there is a need to increase, decrease, or redefine judicial

circuits. This year, aided by an assessment committee, we

undertook a review focused narrowly on whether there is a need to

consolidate (i.e., decrease the number of) judicial circuits. As

explained below, we do not find that there is a need to consolidate

judicial circuits at this time.

Our constitution assigns the Legislature, subject to certain

procedural requirements, the responsibility to divide the state into

judicial circuits following county lines. Art. V, §§ 1, 9, Fla. Const.

The constitution does not fix the number of circuits. Florida has
had 20 judicial circuits since 1969, their boundaries unchanged in

that time.

This Court’s role in the process of making decisions about the

number and boundaries of the judicial circuits is set out in article

V, section 9 of the constitution. That provision requires our Court

to have adopted a rule containing uniform criteria for the

determination of the need to change the circuits. Since 2013, those

criteria have been embodied in rule 2.241 of the Florida Rules of

General Practice and Judicial Administration. They are:

effectiveness; efficiency; access to courts; professionalism; public

trust and confidence; and other factors as are regularly considered

with respect to the need for additional judges. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. &

Jud. Admin. 2.241(c).

Article V, section 9 requires our Court to certify findings and

recommendations to the Legislature if we find the existence of a

need to change the circuits. Rule 2.241 contemplates that the

Court will recommend changes only when adverse circumstances

present a “compelling need” for change or when the judicial process

would be “improved significantly” by a change. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. &

Jud. Admin. 2.241(b). Indeed, the rule advises the Court to
-2-
consider “less disruptive adjustments” before finding that a change

in circuits is needed. Id.

Prompted by a legislative inquiry, our Court this year agreed to

study whether there is a need to consolidate the circuits. We

appointed an assessment committee and asked it to study and

make recommendations limited to evaluating whether consolidation

is needed. Committee members included a district court judge as

chair, multiple circuit judges, a county judge, a state attorney, a

public defender, a clerk of court, and two members of The Florida

Bar’s Board of Governors. Over its five-month existence, the

committee met nine times, held public hearings, conducted surveys

of practitioners and the public, and evaluated qualitative and

quantitative data about the operation of Florida’s trial court system.

The committee’s final, written report (less the appendix) is attached

to this opinion.

By a unanimous vote, the committee found “that no need for

consolidation exists and that the judicial process would not be

improved by consolidation.” Informed by the work of a

subcommittee that studied the potential fiscal impact of

consolidation, the full committee concluded that consolidation was
-3-
unlikely to save money in the trial court system. In addition,

extensive public input led the committee to conclude that

consolidation would not enhance public trust and confidence in the

judicial process.

The committee did identify a need for the trial court system to

achieve greater uniformity in technology and court processes. But

the committee concluded that circuit consolidation would not

necessarily help in those areas. For example, consolidation would

not directly affect county-level variations in technology. The

committee also noted that reforms intended to promote greater

uniformity and transparency in trial court practices are already

underway.

We have considered the committee’s report and

recommendation. And we ourselves have evaluated the issues

relevant to consolidation, guided by the rule 2.241 framework.

Based on the committee’s findings and recommendations and on

our own independent judgment, we do not find that there is a need

to consolidate Florida’s judicial circuits.

The Court is grateful for the committee’s hard work and for its

thorough and thoughtful report. We also thank every court system
-4-
user or member of the public who submitted comments or

information to the committee. Finally, we appreciate the

Legislature’s interest in and support of the court system. What we

learned through this process will undoubtedly help us to better

serve the people of our State.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS,
FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

Original Proceeding – Judicial Circuit Assessment

-5-
Judicial Circuit Assessment
Committee

Final Report and
Recommendation

December 1, 2023
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

Table of Contents
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee Members ..................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1
I. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 2
A. Structure of the Court System .................................................................................................. 2
B. Assessment Committee Formation .......................................................................................... 4
C. History of Judicial Circuit Alignment ..................................................................................... 7
II. Methodology......................................................................................................................................... 9
A. Committee Meetings ................................................................................................................... 10
B. Data Reviewed by Committee .................................................................................................. 14
1. Circuit Profiles ............................................................................................................................ 15
2. Case-Activity Data .................................................................................................................... 15
3. Data Aligned with Rule Criteria ............................................................................................ 15
4. Fiscal and Resource Data ....................................................................................................... 16
C. Outreach ......................................................................................................................................... 17
1. Liaison and Written Communications ................................................................................. 17
2. In-Person Hearings ................................................................................................................... 18
3. Assessment Surveys ................................................................................................................ 18
D. Analysis of Rule 2.241 Criteria ............................................................................................... 20
III. Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 21
A. Input Received on Consolidation: Public Hearings, Written Communication, and
Surveys ................................................................................................................................................. 21
B. Circuit Analyses under Rule 2.241 Criteria........................................................................ 22
1. Effectiveness .............................................................................................................................. 23
2. Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3. Access to Courts ........................................................................................................................ 25
4. Professionalism.......................................................................................................................... 26
5. Public Trust and Confidence .................................................................................................. 26
6. Additional Criteria .................................................................................................................... 27
C. Fiscal Impact ................................................................................................................................. 28
D. Consideration of Less Disruptive Adjustments to Consolidation ................................ 29
E. Misconceptions on Effects of Consolidation ....................................................................... 30
F. Suggestions Beyond the Scope of the Charges .................................................................. 31

i
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

IV. Recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 31
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................. 31

ii
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee Members
The Honorable Jonathan D. Gerber, Chair
Appellate Judge, Fourth District Court of Appeal

The Honorable Stacy M. Butterfield
Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, Polk County

The Honorable Keith A. Carsten
Circuit Court Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Shawn Crane
Chief Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit

Mr. W. Braxton Gillam, IV
Attorney at Law, Jacksonville

The Honorable Glenn Kelley
Chief Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Christopher Kelly
Circuit Court Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Robert W. Lee
County Court Judge, Broward County

Mr. Laird A. Lile
Attorney at Law, Naples

The Honorable Carlos J. Martinez
Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Diana L. Moreland
Chief Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Melissa W. Nelson
State Attorney, Fourth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Linda L. Nobles
Circuit Court Judge, First Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Margaret O. Steinbeck
Circuit Court Judge, Twentieth Judicial Circuit

Staff support provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.

iii
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

Executive Summary
In re: Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No.
AOSC23-35 (June 30, 2023), established the Judicial Circuit Assessment
Committee (Committee) to evaluate whether a need exists to consolidate
Florida’s judicial circuits in accordance with Florida Rule of General Practice
and Judicial Administration 2.241. AOSC23-35 directed the Committee to
evaluate the judicial circuits based on the six criteria in Rule 2.241:
effectiveness, efficiency, access to courts, professionalism, public trust and
confidence, and other factors that are regularly considered when determining a
need for additional judges.
The number and boundaries of judicial circuits in Florida have remained
unchanged since 1969. Although the Florida Supreme Court has not recently
created a committee to study the boundaries of judicial circuits, chief judges
regularly have an opportunity to recommend increasing, decreasing, or
redefining judicial circuits through the Supreme Court’s process of certifying
the need for additional judges and circuit changes under Florida Rules of
General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240 and 2.241.
During the Committee’s five-month term, the Committee met nine times;
seven meetings were conducted by public videoconference, and two meetings
were held in person, during which the public was invited to address the
Committee. The Committee solicited a broad range of input from judges,
attorneys, justice system stakeholders, legal professionals, and the public via
survey instruments. Over the course of its assessment, the Committee
considered a wide variety of data, public testimony, written correspondence,
survey responses, and the results of other outreach. The Committee relied on
quantitative and qualitative information as well as its collective judgment as
judges and justice system stakeholders to evaluate the circuits according to the
criteria established in Rule 2.241.
The Committee did not identify any justification to support consolidation,
and observed significant opposition to consolidation. The majority of
commentary suggested that consolidation would harm public trust and
confidence.
The Committee concluded the assessment was a valuable exercise for the
judicial branch, as well as other justice system entities. Reviewing input from
members of the public and professionals who work in the court system, and
analyzing myriad data on court operations, helped the Committee consider
ways to improve services to court users and further the judicial branch’s vision
of accessible, fair, effective, responsive, and accountable justice.

1
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

While the assessment did not reveal a need warranting consolidation, the
assessment did identify challenges to the judicial circuits that the Committee
determined could be addressed through less disruptive adjustments than
consolidation.
As a result of its assessment, the Committee unanimously voted to
recommend against consolidation of any judicial circuits.

I. Background
A. Structure of the Court System
The Florida court system is comprised of the Supreme Court, district
courts of appeal, circuit courts, and county courts. A “judicial circuit”
encompasses the circuit and county courts that fall within the geographic
boundaries of the judicial circuit. Each layer of the judicial branch plays a
distinct role in providing justice across the state.
The Florida Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in Florida, 1 and
its jurisdiction is prescribed in the Florida Constitution. 2 Certain matters,
including review of orders imposing the death penalty, must be reviewed by the
Supreme Court. 3 On the other hand, the Supreme Court exercises
discretionary review over certain other categories of judgments, decisions, and
writs. 4 The chief justice is the chief administrative officer of the judicial branch
and is responsible for dispatching the business of the branch and directing
implementation of policies and priorities as determined by the Supreme Court. 5
In this role, it is not uncommon for the chief justice to issue an administrative
order establishing a committee or workgroup to assist the Court in
implementing branch-wide policies and initiatives. 6

1 See, Art. V, § 1, Fla. Const. (1968); § 454.021(2), Fla. Stat. (2023).
2 Art. V, § 3(b), Fla. Const. (1968).
3 Art. V, § 3(b)(1)-(2), Fla. Const. (1968).
4 Art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(9), Fla. Const. (1968).
5 Art. V. § 2(b), Fla. Const. (1968); Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.205(a)(2).
6 See, e.g., In re: Judicial Management Council Workgroup on Trial Court

Technology Strategies, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC22-80 (Oct. 28, 2022),
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/851780/file/ AOSC22-
80.pdf; In re: Workgroup on Sanctions for Vexatious and Sham Litigation, Fla.
Admin. Order No. AOSC21-62 (Dec. 9, 2021), htps://supremecourt.
flcourts.gov/content/download/813326/ file/AOSC21-62.pdf; In re: Workgroup
on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC19-73 (Oct.
31, 2019), https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/
644645/file/AOSC19-73.pdf.
2
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

The district courts of appeal, as established by the Constitution, serve
each appellate district established by the Legislature. 7 The state currently is
divided into six appellate districts, with each district comprised of judicial
circuits as designated by statute. 8 The district courts review final judgments
and certain non-final orders from trial courts and governmental entities. 9 The
fundamental reasons for appeals from trial courts are to correct harmful errors
on review by a multi-judge panel of experienced judges and to promote clarity
and consistency in the law by publishing opinions that set forth the relevant
facts of the case and the proper application of the law to those facts. 10
The Constitution provides that a circuit court shall be established to
serve each judicial circuit established by the Legislature. 11 Since 1969, the
state has been divided into twenty judicial circuits. 12 Some judicial circuits are
made up of multiple counties.

Circuit court jurisdiction is established by statute. 13 Circuit court
jurisdiction includes felonies, family law, juvenile delinquency and dependency,
probate, and civil disputes involving more than $50,000. 14

7 Art. V, §§ 1, 4(a), Fla. Const. (1968).
8 § 35.01, Fla. Stat. (2023).
9 Art V, § 4(b), Fla. Const. (1968).
10 Padovano, Philip J., Functions of the Court, 2 Fla. Prac., Appellate Practice §

7:1 (2023 ed.).
11 Art. V, §§ 1, 5(a), Fla. Const. (1968).
12 See § 26.021, Fla. Stat. (2023); § 26.01, Fla. Stat. (1969).
13 § 26.012, Fla. Stat. (2023).
14 § 34.01, Fla. Stat. (2023).

3
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

The Constitution establishes a county court in each of Florida’s sixty-
seven counties. 15 County court jurisdiction is established by statute. 16 County
court jurisdiction includes misdemeanors and civil disputes involving $50,000
or less. 17

B. Assessment Committee Formation
By a letter dated June 15, 2023, Speaker of the Florida House of
Representatives Paul Renner asked the Florida Supreme Court to consider the
merits of consolidating Florida’s judicial circuits as part of the Court’s analysis
of the need to increase, decrease, or redefine circuits. 18 Speaker Renner noted
that the boundaries of Florida’s judicial circuits have remained unchanged for
decades despite significant population and demographic changes during that
timeframe. The Speaker suggested that consolidation of circuits may lead to
greater efficiencies and uniformity in judicial processes. The Speaker also
suggested that consolidation may lead to substantial cost savings, through
enhanced economies of scale in the back-office operations of the judiciary.
The judicial branch annually assesses the need for additional judges
under Article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution, which requires the
Supreme Court to certify such need to the Legislature for further action. 19

15 Art. V, § 6(a), Fla. Const. (1968).
16 Art. V, § (6)(b), Fla. Const. (1968); § 34.01, Fla. Stat. (2023).
17 Id.
18 A copy of Speaker Renner’s letter is available online at the following link:

https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/872807/file/Assessment%20Co
mmittee%2007-14-2023%20Final%20Meeting%20Packet.pdf%23#page=9.
19 See In re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 353 So. 3d 565 (Fla.

2022); In re: Trial Court Judicial Needs Assessment Committee, Fla. Admin.
Order No. AOSC22-77 (Oct. 20, 2022),
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/851320/file/AOSC22-
77.pdf. Part of the process for the certification of need for additional judges
involves a detailed time study to determine case weights. Case weights are
generally reassessed every five years. In re: Commission on Trial Court
Performance and Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC14-40 (July 2,
2014),
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/645011/file/AOSC14-
40.pdf; In re: Commission on Trial Court Performance Accountability, Fla. Admin.
Order No. AOSC22-36 (July 28, 2022),
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/844310/file/AOSC22-
36.pdf. The most recent case weight assessment was delayed due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
4
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

Article V, section 9 also establishes a certification process to determine
the need for increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts and
judicial circuits. Specifically, the constitutional framework provides:
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 and
judicial circuits. If the supreme court finds that a need exists for
increasing or decreasing the number of judges or increasing,
decreasing or redefining appellate districts and judicial circuits, it
shall, prior to the next regular session of the legislature, certify to
the legislature its findings and recommendations concerning such
need. Upon receipt of such certificate, the legislature, at the next
regular session, shall consider the findings and recommendations
and may reject the recommendations or by law implement the
recommendations in whole or in part; provided the legislature may
create more judicial offices than are recommended by the supreme
court or may decrease the number of judicial offices by a greater
number than recommended by the court only upon a finding of two-
thirds of the membership of both houses of the legislature, that such
a need exists. A decrease in the number of judges shall be effective
only after the expiration of a term. If the supreme court fails to make
findings as provided above when need exists, the legislature may by
concurrent resolution request the court to certify its findings and
recommendations and upon the failure of the court to certify its
findings for nine consecutive months, the legislature may, upon a
finding of two-thirds of the membership of both houses of the
legislature that a need exists, increase or decrease the number of
judges or increase, decrease or redefine appellate districts and
judicial circuits. 20
Additionally, the Florida Constitution expressly authorizes the Legislature to
divide the state into judicial circuits following county lines. 21 The current
judicial circuit boundaries are codified in section 26.021, Florida Statutes
(2023).
As part of the constitutional certification process, the Supreme Court is
required to establish, by rule, uniform criteria for determining, among other
things, the need to increase, decrease, or redefine judicial circuits. 22 The

20 Art. V, § 9, Fla. Const. (1968).
21 Art. V, § 1, Fla. Const. (1968).
22 Art. V, § 9, Fla. Const. (1968).

5
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

uniform criteria are set forth in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial
Administration 2.241(c), 23 which requires the Supreme Court to evaluate the
judicial circuits under the following six criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, access
to courts, professionalism, public trust and confidence, and other factors that
are regularly considered when making a determination with respect to the need
for additional judges. 24
Rule 2.241 also authorizes the creation of an assessment committee and
establishes a process to assist the Supreme Court in certifying its findings and
recommendations to the Legislature. The rule requires the assessment
committee to engage in discussions with chief judges, district and trial court
representatives, court budget commissions, The Florida Bar, and the public.
After receiving Speaker Renner’s letter, Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz
established the Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee by issuing In re:
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC23-35
(June 30, 2023), and charged the Committee with evaluating the need to
consolidate Florida’s judicial circuits. 25 The Chief Justice appointed fourteen
members to the committee, including one appellate court judge as chair, seven
circuit court judges, one county court judge, one clerk of court, one public
defender, one state attorney, and two private attorneys who serve on The
Florida Bar Board of Governors.
The administrative order required the Committee to assume that district
court of appeal boundaries would remain unchanged, and allotted the
Committee approximately five months to complete the evaluation, with final
recommendations due to the Chief Justice by December 1, 2023. In addition to
the outreach required under Rule 2.241, the administrative order directed the
Committee to confer with other relevant entities within the justice system, as
deemed appropriate.

23 Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.241 is

available online at the following link: https://www-
media.floridabar.org/uploads/2023/11/2024_04-OCT-Florida-Rules-of-
General-Practice-and-Judicial-Administration-10-19-2023.pdf#page=71.
24 The criteria used to determine the need for additional judges are set forth in

Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240(b)(1) and
(c).
25 Florida Administrative Order No. AOSC23-35 is available online at the

following link: https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/
872183/9705363.
6
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

C. History of Judicial Circuit Alignment
The Committee’s assessment was informed by past reports, including a
1986 Supreme Court study on the need to redefine judicial circuits, 26 a 1991
report from the House of Representatives on judicial circuits, 27 and a 2019
report from the Legislature’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government
Accountability on judicial boundaries and workload, 28 two of which included
detailed chronologies on circuit boundary changes over time.
The 1991 House Report and the OPPAGA Report acknowledge that
Florida has been divided into distinct judicial circuits since it became part of
the Union in 1845. 29 The configuration of these circuits fluctuated significantly
over the years, ranging from a minimum of four circuits in 1845 to a peak of
twenty-eight circuits in 1927. 30 The 1991 House Report notes that circuits
have been adjusted more than eleven times to accommodate population surges,
settlement patterns, and the flow of litigation in Florida courts. 31 The most
recent realignment occurred in 1969 when the court system was configured to
its current composition of twenty circuits. 32
The OPPAGA Report and the 1991 House Report state that the initial
formation of judicial circuits closely mirrored the population distribution across
the state and subsequent subdivisions accommodated population growth. 33
Southeast Florida, for example, began as a single circuit encompassing nearly
the entire eastern coastline south of St. Augustine. 34 This singular circuit
eventually evolved into seven distinct circuits as the region experienced

26 Final Report, The Florida Supreme Court’s Commission to Study the Need for

Increased Appellate Districts and for Redefining Judicial Circuits, January
1986 [hereinafter “1986 Final Report”].
27 A Report on the Judicial Circuits of Florida, Florida House of Representatives

Committee on Judiciary, September 1991 [hereinafter “1991 House Report”].
28 Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, Florida’s

Judicial Boundaries and Workload (2019) [hereinafter “OPPAGA Report”]
(available at https://oppaga.fl.gov/Documents/Reports/19-06.pdf).
29 1991 House Report, supra note 27 at 4; OPPAGA Report, supra note 28 at 5.

See also Art. V, § 5, Fla. Const. (1838).
30 OPPAGA Report, supra note 28, at 5.
31 1991 House Report, supra note 27, at 5.
32 See § 26.021, Fla. Stat. (2023); see also Ch. 69-220, §§ 1-2, at 873, Laws of

Florida (1969).
33 See 1991 House Report, supra note 27, at 5; OPPAGA Report, supra note 28,

at 6.
34 See 1991 House Report, supra note 27, at 39-48; OPPAGA Report, supra note

28, at 6.
7
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

population growth. 35 Similarly, the development of the southwest coast led to
an increase in the number of circuits. What was initially a single expansive
circuit spanning from Tampa Bay to Naples is now five separate circuits,
covering the same geographic region. 36
The 1991 House Report further states that sparse documentation exists
to explain the historical or contemporary layout of the judicial circuits. 37
However, when examined analytically, it appears that the settlement of the
state, coupled with the differing provisions of the state’s constitutions, 38 played
a significant role in how the current circuit alignment developed. 39
Several amendments to the Florida Constitution have influenced circuit
boundary alignment over time. Initially, the Constitution prescribed a specific
quantity of circuits, 40 but subsequent amendments allowed for “convenient”
circuits, which allowed for a variable number of circuits. 41 In 1885, the
Constitution reverted to a predetermined number of circuits; 42 however, this
figure remained fluid and, through subsequent constitutional amendments,
expanded from the initial seven circuits outlined in the 1885 Constitution to a
total of twenty-eight circuits by 1927. 43 The 1991 House Report indicates that
the creation of circuits often paralleled the establishment of new counties by
the Legislature, 44 which were not merged with existing circuits but rather
established as single-county circuits because these new counties were often
not geographically contiguous. 45
As explained in the 1991 House Report, an amendment was made to the
1885 Constitution in 1934, providing for the establishment of fifteen judicial
circuits, each with a minimum population of 50,000 persons. 46 This
constitutional amendment led to the realignment of the circuits, and small

35 Id.
36 See Art. VI, § 7, Fla. Const. (1868); § 26.021, Fla. Stat. (2023).
37 1991 House Report, supra note 27, at 5.
38 See, e.g., Art. V, § 5, Fla. Const. (1838); Art. V, § 4, Fla. Const. (1861); Art.

VI, § 7, Fla. Const. (1868); Art. V, §§ 8, 10, Fla. Const. (1885); Art. V, § 45, Fla.
Const. (1934).
39 OPPAGA Report, supra note 28, at 6.
40 Art. V, § 5, Fla. Const. (1838).
41 See, e.g., Art. V, § 4, Fla. Const. (1861); Art. V, § 4, Fla. Const. (1865).
42 Art. VI, §§ 8, 10, Fla. Const. (1885).
43 OPPAGA Report, supra note 28, at 6.
44 1991 House Report, supra note 27, at 5.
45 Id.
46 Art. V, § 45, Fla. Const. (1934).

8
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

counties that previously stood together or alone were merged with larger
counties to form new circuits. 47
Since 1934, only four modifications to the circuit boundaries have
occurred. In 1951, the Legislature divided the Eleventh Judicial Circuit,
restricting it to Dade County, and concurrently established a new Sixteenth
Judicial Circuit for Monroe County. 48 In 1963, the Legislature divided the
Fifteenth Circuit, restricting it to Palm Beach County, and concurrently
established a new Seventeenth Circuit for Broward County. 49 In 1967, the
Legislature divided the Ninth Circuit into three circuits, leaving Orange and
Osceola counties as the Ninth Circuit, creating a new Eighteenth Circuit
encompassing Brevard and Seminole counties, and creating a new Nineteenth
Circuit encompassing Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, and St. Lucie
counties. 50 Then, in 1969, the Legislature created the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, encompassing Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee counties. 51
Between 1970 and 2018, Florida’s population grew from 6.8 million to
over 20 million residents. 52 During that time, three studies were conducted to
analyze the configuration of judicial circuits. 53 Although the 1986 Final Report
and the 1991 House Report examined potential circuit realignment or
expansion, both reports ultimately determined that no need existed to redefine
judicial circuits. 54

II. Methodology
In order to fulfill the charges of Administrative Order No. AOSC23-35, the
Committee developed a workplan and methodology aimed at providing
thoughtful consideration and careful study of its charges without any
preconceived notion regarding whether a need exists to consolidate Florida’s
judicial circuits. 55 The methodology called for the Committee to conduct virtual

47 Ch. 17085, § 1, at 697-698, Laws of Florida (1935).
48 Ch. 26952, §§ 1-2, at 1189-90, Laws of Florida (1951).
49 Ch. 63-470, §§ 1-2, at 1208-09, Laws of Florida (1963).
50 Ch. 67-195, §§ 2-7, at 399-404, Laws of Florida (1967).
51 Ch. 69-220, §§ 1-2, at 873, Laws of Florida (1969).
52 See OPPAGA Report, supra note 28, at 9.
53 See OPPAGA Report, supra note 28; 1991 House Report, supra note 27; 1986

Final Report, supra note 26.
54 See 1986 Final Report, supra note 26, at 2-5; 1991 House Report, supra note

27, at 19.
55 The Committee’s workplan is available online at the following link:

https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/1160955/file/Assessment%20Co
mmittee%20November%2029%202023%20Meeting%20Packet.pdf#page=2.
9
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

meetings open to the public; hold hybrid in-person/virtual public hearings;
review court, fiscal, and other relevant data; engage in outreach with the
public, justice system partners, and other stakeholders for feedback; develop
surveys for input on the Rule 2.241 criteria; and analyze the data and feedback
received for each judicial circuit, based on existing district court of appeal
boundaries.

A. Committee Meetings
The Committee organized its meetings around several key elements,
including data collection and analysis, survey review, receipt of written
correspondence, consideration of input, and the development of findings and
recommendations. The Committee met nine times. Seven meetings were
conducted by videoconference and the public was given viewing access. Two
meetings were in person, during which the public was invited to address the
Committee in person or by videoconference.
Public engagement in the Committee meetings was significant. On
average, 172 people registered to view the meetings conducted online. For the
first in-person meeting in Orlando, 598 people registered to view the meeting
online, and for the second in-person meeting in Tampa, 412 people registered
to view the meeting online. In addition, a total of more than 100 people
attended the meetings in Orlando and Tampa.
July 14, 2023: The Committee’s first meeting served as a planning session
where members discussed the Committee protocols, proposed timeline, and
outreach methodology. 56 Members were provided with materials including
copies of Administrative Order No. AOSC23-35; the letter from Speaker Renner;
Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.241; relevant
constitutional and statutory provisions; maps of the judicial circuit boundaries;
circuit profiles; a sampling of court-activity data from the Trial Court Statistical
Reference Guide; and prior studies regarding judicial circuit and district court
boundaries. 57 Initial outreach efforts involved assigning each Committee
member a justice system partner to contact to obtain feedback on court
performance and the potential need to consolidate circuits. The Committee also

56 Minutes for the July 14, 2023, Committee meeting are available online at the

following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/874460/file/
Assessment%20Committee%20August%204%202023%20Meeting%20Packet.p
df#page=4.
57 The materials for the July 14, 2023, Committee meeting are available online

at the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/872807/
file/Assessment%20Committee%2007-14-2023%20Final%20Meeting%20
Packet.pdf.
10
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

discussed obtaining additional data that would assist the Committee in
reaching its ultimate findings and recommendation.
August 4, 2023: The Committee members discussed their outreach efforts,
which encompassed various activities such as conducting informational
meetings with stakeholders, establishing channels for future feedback, and
facilitating open dialogue to gather initial insights from justice system partners
regarding whether a need exists for circuit consolidation and perceived costs
and benefits. 58 Committee members reviewed draft surveys presented by staff
of the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) and suggested changes
that were integrated into the surveys. 59 The Committee reviewed a sample
analytical template drafted to assist the Committee in applying the data to each
rule criterion. Members discussed different data elements that could be readily
assembled to assist with the Committee’s analysis. The chair appointed a
subcommittee to assess the potential fiscal and resource impacts of
consolidation. 60
August 25, 2023: This meeting included a hybrid hearing at which members of
the public provided comments in person in Orlando and remotely via Webex. 61
This meeting also was devoted to other Committee business. 62 Based on the
public comments, the members provided recommendations for further areas of
research. The Committee reviewed the updates to the analytical template and
discussed whether the necessary data was readily available or could be

58 Minutes for the August 4, 2023, Committee meeting are available online at

the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/876391/file/
Judicial%20Circuit%20Assessment%20Committee%20August%2025,%202023
,%20Meeting%20Materials.pdf#page=12.
59 The materials for the August 4, 2023, Committee meeting are available

online at the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/874
460/file/Assessment%20Committee%20August%204%202023%20Meeting%20
Packet.pdf.
60 The following Committee members served on the Fiscal and Resource

Subcommittee: Clerk Butterfield, Chief Judge Kelley, State Attorney Nelson,
Judge Nobles, Public Defender Martinez, and Judge Steinbeck, who served as
Subcommittee chair.
61 A summary of the comments provided at the August 25, 2023, Committee

meeting is available online at the following link:
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/
download/879511/file/Assessment%20Committee%20September%2015%2020
23%20Meeting%20Packet%20FINAL.pdf#page=7.
62 Minutes for the August 25, 2023, Committee meeting are available online at

the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/
download/879511/file/Assessment%20Committee%20September%2015%2020
23%20Meeting%20Packet%20FINAL.pdf#page=4.
11
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

obtained within the timeframe allotted to complete the Committee’s charges.
The Committee also reviewed a list of information and data points that would
be relevant to the operations of the public defenders and state attorneys. 63
Judge Margaret Steinbeck, the chair of the Fiscal and Resource Subcommittee,
provided an update to the Committee, sharing the Subcommittee’s goal to
estimate the potential fiscal impact in relation to business operations that may
experience cost savings, increased expenditures, or no impact. OSCA staff
provided an overview of the distribution efforts for the surveys.
September 15, 2023: The Committee reviewed the most recent
correspondence, and members shared feedback received from justice system
partners. 64 The Committee studied the results of the two surveys, focusing on
statewide tabulation of the multiple- and scaled-choice questions for each
survey. 65 The members were also presented with six data packets compiled by
OSCA staff based, in part, on members’ suggestions. Staff summarized the data
elements, sources, and how the data aligned with the rule criteria. The Fiscal
and Resource Subcommittee provided an update, noting additional outreach to
multiple justice system partners.
September 29, 2023: The Committee reviewed the most recent
correspondence. 66 OSCA staff provided an update on the surveys, reviewing a
portion of the summaries of the narrative responses. 67 The survey overviews

63 The materials for the August 25, 2023, Committee meeting are available

online at the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/876
391/file/Judicial%20Circuit%20Assessment%20Committee%20August%2025,
%202023,%20Meeting%20Materials.pdf.
64 Minutes for the September 15, 2023, Committee meeting are available online

at the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/880320/
file/Assessment-Committee-September-29-2023-Meeting-Packet.pdf#page=4.
65 The materials for the September 15, 2023, Committee meeting are available

online at the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/879
511/file/Assessment%20Committee%20September%2015%202023%20Meetin
g%20Packet%20FINAL.pdf.
66 Minutes for the September 29, 2023, Committee meeting are available online

at the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/881147/
file/Assessment%20Committee%20October%2013%20Public%20Hearing%20P
acket%20(final%20for%20posting)_Redacted.pdf#page=4.
67 The materials for the September 29, 2023, Committee meeting are available

online at the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/
880320/file/Assessment-Committee-September-29-2023-Meeting-Packet.pdf.
The supplemental materials for the September 29, 2023, Committee meeting
are available online at the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/
download/880346/file/JCAC-Prelimary-Report-on-Survey-for-Members-of-the-
Public.pdf.
12
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

also contained specific suggestions for consolidation contained in the narrative
responses. Members were given a refresher on the analytical template and were
encouraged to utilize it while analyzing the data for each circuit. The Fiscal and
Resource Subcommittee presented an overview of its findings, explaining that
the findings were designed to provide information related to potential statewide
impacts. The fiscal and resource impacts of any specific suggestions for
consolidation would require further study.
October 13, 2023: The Committee conducted a hybrid hearing at which
members of the public provided comments in person in Tampa and remotely
via Zoom. 68 OSCA staff also provided a final report on the compilation of the
narrative responses to the survey questions. 69 The chair encouraged members
to begin formulating their thoughts so that deliberations could begin in earnest
at the next meeting. Members were also provided with the most recent
correspondence received. 70 The majority of the meeting was focused on
receiving testimony from the public who appeared in person or on Zoom. 71
November 3, 2023: This meeting focused on the development of findings and
recommendations. 72 To assist the Committee in conducting its analysis, OSCA
staff completed the analytical template for each judicial circuit based on
individual conversations with all fourteen Committee members. 73 Organized by
circuits within each district court of appeal, the analytical templates were

68 A summary of the comments provided at the October 13, 2023, Committee

meeting is available online at the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/
content/download/927785/file/JCAC-Meeting-Packet-11-3-23.pdf#page=7.
69 Minutes for the October 13, 2023, Committee meeting are available online at

the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/
download/927785/file/JCAC-Meeting-Packet-11-3-23.pdf#page=4.
70 The materials for the October 13, 2023, Committee meeting are available

online at the following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/
content/download/881147/file/Assessment%20Committee%20October%2013
%20Public%20Hearing%20Packet%20(final%20for%20posting)_Redacted.pdf.
71 See footnote 68, supra.
72 Minutes for the November 3, 2023, Committee meeting are available online

at the following link:
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/1042780/file/Assessment%20Co
mmittee%20November%2017%202023%20Meeting%20Packet.pdf#page=4.
73 The materials for the November 3, 2023, Committee meeting are available

online at the following link:
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/927785/file/JCAC-Meeting-
Packet-11-3-23.pdf. The supplemental materials for the November 3, 2023,
Committee meeting are available online at the following link:
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/934429/file/Consolication%20of
%20Judicial%20Circuits%20Comments%20(FL%20Bar%20CLS).pdf.
13
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

reviewed under the Rule 2.241 criteria, highlighting both common and unique
issues to each circuit. The Committee discussed their findings and went
through each of the consolidation proposals submitted by survey respondents
and which were within the parameters of the Committee’s charges as outlined
in Administrative Order No. AOSC23-35. Members weighed the benefits and
concerns of each proposal and ultimately determined that any benefits of
consolidation were outweighed by significant concerns. The Committee
unanimously voted to recommend against consolidation of any judicial circuits.
November 17, 2023: At this meeting, the Committee reviewed the draft report
prepared by OSCA staff based on the Committee’s deliberations. 74 Committee
members discussed revisions to the draft report and were encouraged to
provide any additional revisions by the close of business on Monday, November
20, 2023. 75
November 29, 2023: The Committee reviewed the revisions to the draft report,
which included those discussed during the November 17, 2023, meeting,
revisions provided by Committee members after the meeting, and technical
edits made by OSCA staff. 76 The Committee unanimously approved the final
report as revised, granting the chair and staff latitude to make technical or
other non-substantive revisions. 77

B. Data Reviewed by Committee
In accordance with Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial
Administration 2.241, the Committee reviewed court statistics, projections, and
other data to determine whether a need exists to consolidate judicial circuits.

74 Minutes for the November 17, 2023, Committee meeting are available online

at the following link:
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/1160955/file/Assessment%20Co
mmittee%20November%2029%202023%20Meeting%20Packet.pdf#page=4.
75 The materials for the November 17, 2023, Committee meeting are available

online at the following link:
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/1042780/file/Assessment%20Co
mmittee%20November%2017%202023%20Meeting%20Packet.pdf.
76 Minutes for the November 29, 2023, Committee meeting are available online

at the following link:
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/1172661/file/JCAC%20meeting
%20#8%20-%20minutes%2011-29-2023.pdf.
77 The materials for the November 29, 2023, Committee meeting are available

online at the following link:
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/1160955/file/Assessment%20Co
mmittee%20November%2029%202023%20Meeting%20Packet.pdf.
14
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

1. Circuit Profiles
The Committee reviewed profiles of all twenty judicial circuits. The circuit
profiles included information on overall case filings, dispositions, number of
judges, population, and square mileage within each circuit. 78

2. Case-Activity Data
The Trial Court Statistical Reference Guide is produced annually by the
OSCA to compile and present statistical data related to trial court operations. 79
This annual report contains data regarding case filings, dispositions, charges,
clearance rates, and jury trial dispositions. Select data from the Trial Court
Statistical Reference Guide was provided to the Committee as detailed in
section II.B.3. below.

3. Data Aligned with Rule Criteria
To facilitate the Committee’s analysis, OSCA staff selected particular
data elements from the list of elements discussed at the Committee’s August 4
meeting, compiled the data, and aligned the data with the rule criteria. 80
The data elements relevant to the “effectiveness” criterion 81 included the
following: circuit criminal clearance rates, circuit civil clearance rates, circuit
family clearance rates, circuit probate clearance rates, county criminal
clearance rates, county civil clearance rates, and survey responses. 82
With respect to the “efficiency” criterion, 83 the following data elements
were provided to the Committee: overall clearance rates, open criminal cases,
deployment of court case management systems, deployment of clerk case
maintenance systems, and judicial e-filing implementation progress.
Regarding the “access to courts” criterion, 84 the Committee was provided
the following data elements: courthouse locations and distances, E-Filing

78 The circuit profiles are available online at the following link: https://www.fl

courts.gov/content/download/874460/file/Assessment%20Committee%20Aug
ust%204%202023%20Meeting%20Packet.pdf#page=72.
79 The Trial Court Statistical Reference Guide is available online at the

following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/Publications-Statistics/Statistics/
Trial-Court-Statistical-Reference-Guide.
80 The data compilation presented to the Committee is available online at the

following link: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/879511/file/
Assessment%20Committee%20September%2015%202023%20Meeting%20Pac
ket%20FINAL.pdf#page=117.
81 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(c)(1).
82 The survey responses are more fully explained in section III. below.
83 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(c)(2).
84 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(c)(3).

15
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

Portal self-represented litigant account information, and DIY (Do It Yourself)
Florida interview filings by county.
Data elements provided for the “professionalism” criterion 85 included:
survey responses, continuing judicial education extension requests, trial court
staff vacancies 180 days or longer, turnover in trial court positions, court staff
participation in the Florida Court Personnel Institute, 86 and court staff
participation in Institute for Court Management 87 courses.
For the “public trust and confidence” criterion, 88 the Committee
reviewed: maps of the DCAs by circuit and county, circuit and county
population and square mileage, and number of judges by circuit and county.
Finally, with respect to the “additional criteria” criterion, 89 which
addresses factors considered when determining the need for additional judges
pursuant to Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration
2.240(1)(b) and (c), the following data was provided to the Committee: county
court judge assignments in circuit court, judges assigned to criminal and
delinquency divisions, circuit criminal jury trial rates, circuit civil jury trial
rates, county criminal jury trial rates, county civil jury trial rates, interpreter
events by circuit, Baker Act filings, post-conviction relief motions, violation of
probation hearings, and criminal justice profiles compiled by the Legislature’s
Office of Economic and Demographic Research.
4. Fiscal and Resource Data
The Fiscal and Resource Subcommittee evaluated the fiscal impact of
consolidation on the trial courts, clerks of court, state attorneys, public
defenders, local law enforcement, and other justice system partners. 90 The

85 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(c)(4).
86 The Florida Court Personnel Institute is a two- to four-day program tailored

to the education needs of Florida’s court employees and brings approximately
250 court personnel together from across the state to participate in programs
that focus on topics such as purposes and responsibilities of the court, court
communications, court outreach, customer service, and faculty training.
87 The Institute for Court Management, founded by the National Center for

State Courts, offers training and education for judicial branch personnel in the
growing body of knowledge on court leadership and management concepts,
case management, human resources management, the court performance
standards, and other areas deemed critical to professional development.
88 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(c)(5).
89 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(c)(6).
90 The Subcommittee’s report is available online at the following link:

https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/880320/file/Assessment-
Committee-September-29-2023-Meeting-Packet.pdf#page=221.
16
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

analysis was limited to estimating the statewide fiscal impact of consolidation
on each identified justice system partner. 91 Subcommittee members engaged in
outreach with the affected entities to obtain fiscal impact assessments,
comments, and other supporting data, which was provided to the Committee. 92

C. Outreach
As directed by Administrative Order No. AOSC23-35, the Committee
conferred with chief judges and other representatives of the courts, the Trial
Court Budget Commission, The Florida Bar, and the public, as well as other
justice system entities. To this end, the Committee pursued multiple avenues
of outreach, including soliciting written comments and speaking at various
civic forums, holding hearings to accept public testimony, and distributing
surveys.
The public interest and engagement on the question of consolidation was
extensive in all three areas of outreach. The engagement spanned the state and
included professional and public interests.
1. Liaison and Written Communications
The chair assigned Committee members as liaisons to certain
stakeholders to facilitate outreach. 93 Members were also instructed to share
with the Committee any feedback received individually or through liaison
activities. 94
An email account was established for the Committee to receive written
correspondence. All communications received were subsequently included in
the next meeting materials packet for review by all members and any interested

91 The Subcommittee’s workplan contemplated conducting more granular

circuit-by-circuit analyses in the event the Committee sought review of any
specific proposals for consolidation. However, the Committee did not direct the
Subcommittee to review any specific consolidation proposals.
92 This outreach included the following entities: Florida Department of Children

and Families, Florida Department of Corrections, Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Police
Benevolent Association, Florida Police Chiefs Association, Florida Sheriffs
Association, Florida State Fraternal Order of Police, Justice Administrative
Commission, and the Office of the Attorney General.
93 The liaison assignments can be found in the minutes from the July 14,

2023, Committee meeting, available online at the following link:
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/874460/file/Assessment%20Co
mmittee%20August%204%202023%20Meeting%20Packet.pdf#page=6.
94 The meeting minutes referenced in section II.A. above reflect the feedback

received by individual Committee members.
17
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

person. 95 In total, the Committee received 189 written comments, from state
attorneys, public defenders, judges, chief judges, the Conference of Circuit
Judges of Florida, police chiefs, sheriffs, county commissioners, sections of The
Florida Bar, local bar associations, and the general public, among others. Eight
of the submissions included resolutions from city councils, county
commissions, and one circuit bar association.
Several Committee members presented information regarding the work of
the Committee at various civic forums. Chief Judge Crane addressed the West
Pasco, Clearwater, and St. Petersburg Bar Associations; Judge Gerber and
Public Defender Martinez spoke with the Miami-Dade Bar Association; State
Attorney Nelson and Mr. Gillam spoke with the Jacksonville Bar Association;
and Judge Kelly met with the Putnam County, St. Johns County, and Volusia
County Bar Associations. Additionally, Judges Lee and Kelly spoke with the
Conference of County Court Judges of Florida, and Judge Carsten addressed
the Conference of Circuit Judges of Florida.
2. In-Person Hearings
Meetings hosted in two centrally-located cities drew large audiences. 96
The first in-person hearing on August 25, 2023, was a hybrid hearing held at
the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando and virtually on Webex. Forty-six
individuals testified regarding consolidation of circuits. Of those forty-six,
sixteen were public officials, including state attorneys, public defenders, state
representatives, and one state senator.
The second in-person hearing on October 13, 2023, was also a hybrid
hearing held at the Hillsborough County Courthouse in Tampa and virtually on
Zoom. Fifty-seven individuals testified regarding consolidation of circuits. Of
those fifty-seven, twenty-four were public officials, including state attorneys,
public defenders, law enforcement officials, state and county representatives,
judges, one chief judge, and one clerk of court.
3. Assessment Surveys
To obtain a broad range of input on the six criteria outlined in Rule
2.241, the Committee drafted and distributed two online surveys. The Survey
of Court, Government, and Legal Professionals (Professional Survey) was

95 Meeting materials, supra notes, 57, 59, 63, 65, 67, 70, 73, 75, and 77.
96 A total of 103 speakers provided testimony at the public hearings. By

comparison, the recent District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction
Assessment Committee held a public hearing where only three individuals
provided testimony. See District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction
Assessment Committee, Final Report and Recommendations (2021),
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/791118/file/dca-assessment-
Committee-Final-Report.pdf.
18
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

developed for professional stakeholders who interact or practice in the court
system. 97 The Survey for Members of the Public (Public Survey) was drafted
with the court user in mind. The surveys were tailored to the rule criteria in a
neutral fashion to obtain unbiased responses from these diverse populations.
The Professional Survey relied on scaled-choice questions, which requested the
respondent to agree or disagree with a statement on a five-point scale. The
Public Survey utilized a more simplified scale using “yes,” “somewhat,” “no,”
and “don’t know/no opinion.” Both surveys provided respondents the
opportunity to explain their previous answers using up to 2,000 characters per
“free response” question.
The Florida Bar graciously facilitated distribution of the professional
survey to all attorneys licensed in Florida via e-mail, while the Committee
asked circuit court chief judges to share the survey with their respective judges
and court staff. Staff of the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA)
also shared the instruments with several governmental agencies, professional
associations, and similar organizations, including legal aid providers. The
clerks of court agreed to provide a link to the surveys on their website. A
dedicated webpage was created on the Florida Courts website (flcourts.gov),
displaying prominent links to both surveys, and the surveys were further
advertised through Florida Courts social media channels. The surveys were
open to respondents on August 9, 2023, and were originally set to expire on
September 1. However, the response period was extended to September 4 due
to disruptions caused by Hurricane Idalia.
Nearly 7,000 survey responses were received. For the Public Survey,
2,087 completed responses were submitted. The Professional Survey generated
4,818 complete responses. Of those, 41% (1,995) of respondents identified
themselves as “private attorney.” Statistical analyses of the multiple- and
scaled-choice questions for each survey were produced both on a statewide

97 The Professional Survey solicited opinions from the following groups: chief

judges, former chief judges, appellate court judges, circuit court judges, county
court judges, senior judges, magistrates, hearing officers, DCA staff, trial court
administrators, other trial court staff, clerks of the circuit court or clerk staff,
state attorneys and assistant state attorneys, public defenders and assistant
public defenders, criminal conflict or civil regional counsel (CCRC) and
assistant CCRCs, other government attorneys, legal services or other non-profit
attorneys, private attorneys, state government officials, county government
officials, and law enforcement officials.
19
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

basis and for each circuit. 98 A statewide summary of the “free response”
answers to narrative survey questions was also produced for each survey. 99

D. Analysis of Rule 2.241 Criteria
Under Rule 2.241, certification of the need to increase, decrease, or
redefine judicial circuits may be established under two circumstances. First,
the Supreme Court is required to certify such need when it determines that the
judicial process is adversely affected by circumstances that present a
compelling need for the certified change. 100 Second, the Court may certify such
need when it determines that the judicial process would be improved
significantly by the certified change. 101
Ultimately, the Supreme Court is required to balance the potential
impact and disruption caused by changes in the boundaries of judicial circuits
against the need to address circumstances that limit the quality and efficiency
of, and public confidence in, the judicial process. 102 Given the impact and
disruption that can arise from any alteration in judicial structure, the Supreme
Court is required to consider, prior to recommending a change in judicial
circuits, 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, deployment of new technologies, and
increased ratios of support staff per judge. 103
The analytical template developed at the Committee’s August 4 and 25
meetings served as a key tool in the Committee’s analysis of the need to
consolidate judicial circuits. The analytical template was designed to permit the
Committee to uniformly evaluate each judicial circuit by applying relevant data
to each rule criterion. Within the template, the factors for each of the six rule
criteria were aligned with relevant data, as detailed in section II.B.3. above. The
template assisted the members in conducting individual circuit analyses by
encouraging the members to note any concerns after considering the data in
light of a specific rule factor. A series of questions were presented to reach the

98 OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR, JCAC Survey Data, FL COURTS,

https://www.flcourts.gov/Administration-Funding/Court-Councils-
Commissions-and-Committees/Judicial-Circuit-Assessment-Committee/JCAC-
Survey-Data (last modified Oct. 16, 2023).
99 Id.
100 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(b)(1).
101 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(b)(2).
102 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(b)(8).
103 Id.

20
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

ultimate conclusion of whether on balance, any benefits of consolidation
outweigh the potential impact or disruption.
All members provided feedback to OSCA staff on the circuits. With this
foundational work complete, the full Committee evaluated all of the circuits
during its November 3, 2023, meeting using templates which staff completed
based on the members’ input. 104

III. Findings
The Committee finds that no need for consolidation exists and that the
judicial process would not be improved by consolidation. As a basis for these
findings, the Committee considered myriad data points, survey responses,
public testimony, and written correspondence, and relied on their collective
judgment as judges and professionals in evaluating how the judicial circuits
are functioning in relation to each rule criterion.
A. Input Received on Consolidation: Public Hearings, Written Communication,
and Surveys
The Committee finds that public input did not evidence support for
consolidating judicial circuits. The public interest and engagement on the
question of consolidation was extensive in all three areas of outreach. The
engagement spanned the state and included professional and public interests.
Notably, the public sentiment was resoundingly opposed to consolidating
judicial circuits.
Over the course of two public hearings, 103 people provided testimony.
Ninety-one of the 103 speakers at the public hearings expressed concerns
about, or argued against, consolidation, while four spoke in favor of
consolidation and ten referenced the merits of reviewing judicial circuit
boundaries. 105 State attorneys and public defenders, through their respective
associations or individually, opposed consolidation or expressed strong
concerns about consolidation. 106 Out of the 189 written comments received,
155 were opposed to consolidation, with only four in favor. Twenty-seven

104 All twenty circuit analytical templates are attached to this report as an

appendix.
105 These figures exceed 103 due to the multifaceted nature of the testimony.
106 To remain neutral, Committee members State Attorney Nelson and Public

Defender Martinez did not participate in the comments submitted by other
state attorneys and public defenders. Letters from the State Attorneys and
Public Defenders can be found in the meeting materials linked in footnotes 59,
63, 65, 70, and 75 supra. Links to the summaries of the comments received in
person and by videoconference can be found in footnotes 61 and 68, supra.
21
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

commenters did not take a position on consolidation, and seven referenced the
merits of reviewing judicial circuit boundaries. 107
For the statewide Public Survey, when asked whether the six criteria in
Rule 2.241 would be improved through consolidation, the percentage of
responses stating the criteria would not be improved ranged from 87.2% to
93.5%. When the “don’t know/no opinion” answers are removed from the
statewide Professional Survey results, the highest percentage of respondents
who believed consolidation would improve any of the six criteria was 2.6%.
Below is a visual example of the statewide Public Survey and Professional
Survey responses to the question of whether consolidation would improve the
effectiveness of judicial circuits.

Public Survey Responses Professional Survey Responses

36
89 (1.72%) 11
653 126 (2.6%)
(4.26%) (0.53%) (13.6%)

4039
Yes (83.8%)
1951
Somewhat
(93.48%)
No
Don't know/No opinion Yes No Don't Know/No Opinion

B. Circuit Analyses under Rule 2.241 Criteria
Using the survey, oral comments, and written input on consolidation, as
well as various court-related data, the Committee analyzed each of the twenty
judicial circuits against the six criteria (along with the factors underlying each
criterion) prescribed in Rule 2.241: effectiveness, efficiency, access to courts,
professionalism, public trust and confidence, and additional factors regularly
considered in determining the need for additional judges under Rule 2.240. For
purposes of this analysis, the Committee grouped judicial circuits based on the
geographical boundaries of each district court of appeal. 108 The map below

107 These figures exceed 189 due to the multifaceted nature of the written

comments.
108 Administrative Order No. AOSC23-35 required the Committee to assume

that existing DCA boundaries would remain unchanged.
22
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

illustrates the composition of the six district courts of appeal by judicial circuit,
as prescribed in sections 35.02 through 35.044, Florida Statutes (2023).

The analytical templates referenced in section II.D. above, and attached
to this report as an appendix, assisted the members in applying the relevant
data and other information to the rule criteria for each judicial circuit. The
information which the Committee reviewed for a particular criterion often
applied to other criteria as well (e.g., clearance rates as relevant to effectiveness
and efficiency).
The Committee finds that the judicial circuits are operating well.
However, as summarized below, judicial circuits are facing various challenges
or concerns affecting performance – with some of these being common across
multiple circuits. The Committee also considered the potential causes of these
challenges and concerns.
1. Effectiveness
In evaluating the effectiveness criterion, the Committee focused on
historical clearance rates in six divisions: circuit criminal, circuit civil, circuit
family, circuit probate, county criminal, and county civil. The Committee
reviewed five years of data, finding that clearance rates were favorable or
trending favorably over the period from fiscal year 2017-18 through fiscal year
2021-22. However, the Committee observed instances in which circuit court or
county court clearance rates for certain divisions in a judicial circuit were
below the statewide average and the court system’s performance standards.

23
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

With respect to causation, the Committee observed that availability of sufficient
resources is a significant factor affecting the ability of judicial circuits to
operate effectively, efficiently, and in advancement of the criteria in Rule 2.241.
For example, the Committee recognized that judicial and adjudicatory staff
resources can affect the timely and efficient disposition of cases. The
Committee further noted that clearance rates should be reviewed over multiple
years for analytical and comparative purposes, because circumstance-specific
anomalies can affect clearance rates in one year (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic;
a substantial number of judicial vacancies in a judicial circuit; hurricane-
related closures; etc.).
Some speakers during the public comment sessions and some survey
respondents noted the need for greater uniformity and consistency between
and among the circuits. The Committee heard concerns about inconsistent
procedures and technologies across judicial circuits, the existence of which
affects court users who function in multiple circuits. These comments
suggested that uniform court procedures and technologies would enhance the
judicial system’s effectiveness and efficiency. The Committee recognizes the
potential benefit that enhanced uniformity could pose to the public, court
users, and professionals, but concludes that less disruptive alternatives to
consolidation exist to achieve enhanced uniformity. More specifically, the
Committee observes that the issue of enhanced uniform court procedures has
been addressed by the judicial branch through the Judicial Management
Council’s Workgroup on Judicial Practices in Trial Courts, which is more fully
explained in section III.D. below.
Inconsistency in technology, the Committee found, is rooted in Florida’s
constitutional framework for funding the court system, under which counties
are required to fund the cost of “communications services” for the trial courts –
defined by statute to include hardware and software. 109 The Committee
observed that a recently completed comprehensive study by the Judicial
Management Council’s Workgroup on Trial Court Technology Strategies found
that inconsistencies among the judicial circuits in the deployment of case
management systems are due in large part to funding inequities among
counties. 110 The Committee notes that uniformity in technology would not
result from consolidating judicial circuits because each of the state’s sixty-
seven county clerks of court has responsibility over the clerk’s respective
system for maintaining case records. Consolidation of judicial circuits would

109 Art. V, § 14(c), Fla. Const. (1968), § 29.008(1), Fla. Stat. (2023).
110 Jud. Mgmt. Council of Fla., Workgroup on Trial Court Technology Strategies

Final Report and Recommendations (2023),
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/881324/file/Final%20Report%20
-%20Workgroup%20on%20Trial%20Court%20Technology%20Strategies.pdf.
24
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

have no effect on streamlining case management systems because
consolidation would not alter county boundaries and jurisdiction.
2. Efficiency
The Committee observed instances of lower satisfaction – as reflected in
the public and professional survey responses – for some circuits’ performance
against the Rule 2.241 efficiency factor of staying current with its caseload.
However, the Committee observed that even in these instances, an
overwhelming majority of respondents nevertheless did not support
consolidation of judicial circuits as a means to enhance efficiency.
Rule 2.241 identifies, as an additional factor under the efficiency
criterion, whether the circuit “uses its resources, case management techniques,
and technologies to improve the efficient adjudication of cases.” The Committee
identified examples of circuits not being compliant in all counties with the
latest standards for case management systems (i.e., the Court Application
Processing System) as prescribed by the Florida Courts Technology
Commission. 111 The Committee concluded that funding inequities among
counties may contribute to a circuit’s technological challenges and that
consolidation of judicial circuits would not remediate this issue for the reasons
described in section III.B.1. above.
3. Access to Courts
The Committee noted lower satisfaction, as reflected in the public and
professional survey responses, for some circuits’ performance against Rule
2.241 factors under the access to courts criterion – in particular making
decisions of the court available in a timely and efficient manner and providing
litigants, including self-represented litigants, with meaningful access to court.
As noted with other criteria, however, respondents nevertheless did not support
consolidation as a solution to concerns about access to courts.
The Committee received considerable input from the public indicating a
concern that consolidation would negatively affect access to courts by requiring
individuals to drive longer distances to participate in court activities. The
Committee finds, however, that consolidation would not impact the public’s
access to the court system. As addressed in section III.E. below, consolidation
would not affect the ability to prosecute cases or adjudicate civil claims in the

111 The Court Application Processing System (CAPS) is an information

technology system that provides judges and court staff with access to electronic
case file information from a variety of sources. The CAPS Certified
Functionality Map presented to the Committee is available online at
https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/879511/file/Assessment%20Co
mmittee%20September%2015%202023%20Meeting%20Packet%20FINAL.pdf#p
age=149.
25
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

county where the crime occurred, the county where the cause of action
accrued, or the county where the property in litigation is located. 112 Further,
consolidation would not result in closure of county courthouses. Thus, while
members of the public might have to travel farther to observe court proceedings
in a circuit with larger geography, they would not have to do so to enforce their
rights.
4. Professionalism
Among the factors that Rule 2.241 prescribes under the professionalism
criterion are judges’ ability to participate in continuing judicial education and
the circuit’s ability to recruit and retain qualified staff. In analyses of these
factors, the Committee considered, among other information, data on requests
by judges for extensions of time in reporting compliance with continuing
judicial education credit requirements. The small number of judges statewide
who requested continuing judicial education credit extensions for 2019-2023
suggests that judges have adequate time and resources to participate in
continuing judicial education and to stay current on the law.
With respect to recruitment and retention of qualified staff, the
Committee noted difficulty in multiple circuits, as reflected in higher-than-
average turnover rates or positions vacant more than 180 days. Members noted
that the cost of living in some circuits contributes significantly to challenges in
recruiting staff, as does the ability to offer competitive salaries. Further, state
and national labor market conditions, which courts and justice system
partners have limited ability to control, can increase turnover rates and cause
delays in filling vacancies.
The Committee finds that consolidation in most instances would not
resolve or would have no effect on these circuit challenges and, consequently,
would not enhance professionalism. Specifically, staffing, like workload, is
largely “county-centric,” the Committee noted. Applications for staff vacancies
tend to be drawn from the same county or general geographic area in which the
position is headquartered. Thus, while consolidation would increase the
number of counties in a given circuit, consolidation would not likely cause
individuals to apply for positions in a county that is a significant distance from
where they reside.
5. Public Trust and Confidence
This Rule 2.241 criterion focuses on whether the judicial circuit “fosters
public trust and confidence given its geography and demographic composition.”
This criterion was invoked by a significant number of survey
respondents, individuals testifying during the public hearings, and persons

112 See, e.g., §§ 47.011, 47.021, 910.03, Fla. Stat (2023).

26
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

who submitted written comments. The general sentiment among those who
discussed public trust and confidence argued that consolidation would
diminish public trust and confidence. They noted the importance of a
connection between the local community and judges, the state attorney, the
public defender, and others involved in the judicial system. 113 Many also noted
the dilution of geographic representation that would likely result from
consolidation and expressed concerns that expanding the geographic and
population size of a circuit would negatively affect local relationships to the
judicial system.
In the survey responses, the Committee observed, for multiple circuits,
comparatively lower satisfaction with the statement that the circuit attracts a
diverse group of well-qualified applicants for judicial vacancies, including
applicants from all counties within the circuit. However, members did not
believe that consolidation would mitigate this concern.
As a related matter, the Committee observed that a judicial circuit
nominating commission has nine members, each of whom is a resident of the
territorial jurisdiction served by the commission. 114 Consolidation of judicial
circuits would likely impact the geographic diversity in the membership of a
commission, which may affect perceptions about a localized connection
between the judiciary and the community (e.g., whether the commission for
consolidated circuits reflects the counties in the expanded territorial
jurisdiction).
The Committee finds that consolidation would not enhance public trust
and confidence in the judicial system.
6. Additional Criteria
The sixth criterion under Rule 2.241 encompasses “other factors as are
regularly considered when making a determination with respect to the need for
additional judges under” Rules 2.240(b)(1) and (c). In addition to addressing
the primary quantitative methodology for determining the need for additional
judges, those Rule 2.240 provisions also address consideration of secondary
factors affecting workload. Examples of these factors include the geographic
size of a circuit and travel times between courthouses, prosecutorial practices

113 See In re Redefinition of Appellate Districts & Certification of Need for

Additional Appellate Judges, 345 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2021) (“The ‘primary
rationale’ for this recommendation ‘is that creation of an additional DCA would
promote public trust and confidence.’”). One of the factors under the “public
trust and confidence” criterion of Rule 2.241 is the extent to which each court
“handles its workload in a manner permitting its judges adequate time for
community involvement.”
114 § 43.291, Fla. Stat. (2023).

27
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

and resources, availability of case-related support staff and case management
practices, and caseload trends. As part of its analysis of this criterion, the
Committee compiled information related to a number of the Rule 2.240 factors.
The Committee did not identify any significant concerns among the
twenty circuits under this criterion.
C. Fiscal Impact
The Fiscal and Resource Subcommittee, 115 undertook an extensive
review of the potential fiscal impact 116 of consolidation on a statewide basis.
The Subcommittee was cognizant that without knowing which judicial circuits
might be consolidated, the Subcommittee could not truly know or appreciate
the exact fiscal or other impacts of consolidation without further extensive
analysis. The Subcommittee also recognized that consolidation could affect
different entities in the justice system differently and could result in short-term
and long-term impacts.
Benefitting from the extensive analysis of the Subcommittee, the
Committee found that, on a statewide basis, judicial circuit consolidation
would have an overall estimated neutral or no long-term fiscal impact as it
relates to the work of the trial courts, clerks, and the majority of state agencies
and local and state law enforcement. The Committee further determined that
consolidation would have an overall estimated negative or adverse fiscal impact
as it relates to the work of the state attorneys and public defenders. Short
term, the Committee determined that consolidation would have an estimated
negative fiscal impact on specific functional categories, such as technology, for
the trial courts and clerks. These short-term negative impacts would be
especially significant for the state attorneys and public defenders. Although the
Committee recognized that consolidation could generate operational changes in
areas such as filing practices, case-related activity, prosecutorial practices, and
law enforcement activities that could result in cost savings or increases over
time, these specific changes are neither readily predictable nor currently
capable of measurement.

115 The Subcommittee’s report is available online at the following link:

https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/880320/file/Assessment-
Committee-September-29-2023-Meeting-Packet.pdf#page=221.
116 For the purposes of this report, a “positive fiscal impact” is one that results

in a cost savings, and a “negative fiscal impact” is one that results in a cost
increase.
28
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

D. Consideration of Less Disruptive Adjustments to Consolidation
The Committee also considered the potential disruptive impacts of
consolidation and, as directed by Rule 2.241, considered less disruptive
adjustments to consolidation.
Disruption, and specifically disruption related to technology, was
discussed frequently in public comment and written correspondence. The
Committee found that judicial circuit consolidation would require integrating
various and different technologies, resulting in considerable, complex, and
lengthy disruption to the potential detriment of court users. In addition, while
the Committee’s primary focus was on impacts to the public, the Committee
recognized that larger geographic areas could pose disruptions for courts and
justice system entities, such as increased travel times across a consolidated
circuit and the need for interaction and coordination with additional local
governments and law enforcement agencies.
The Committee noted a number of alternatives to consolidation that have
been implemented, are in the process of being implemented, or could be
implemented with sufficient resources to address the challenges identified
during its assessment. These include:

• Funding in the fiscal year 2023-24 general appropriations act for
salary increases for critical due process positions, which took effect
July 1, 2023. Specifically, the Legislature funded targeted salary
increases for court reporters, digital court reporters, court
interpreters, trial court staff attorneys, and case managers, and this
funding is already showing promise to help with recruitment and
retention.

• Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council’s Workgroup
on Judicial Practices in the Trial Courts regarding “the
implementation of procedures and other instructions by judges for
practice within their individual courtrooms and [determining] whether
such instructions are sufficiently accessible, understandable, and
consistent with rules of court procedure and law.” 117 In response, the
Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of General Practice and
Judicial Administration 2.215 as recommended by the Workgroup. 118

117 In re: Workgroup on Judicial Practices in the Trial Courts, Fla. Admin. Order

No. AOSC21-57 (Nov. 9, 2021),
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/802678/file/AOSC21-
57.pdf.
118 In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial

Administration 2.215, 48 Fla. L. Weekly S194 (Fla. Sept. 28, 2023).
29
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

• Judicial branch budget request for fiscal year 2024-25, which
includes a number of issues designed to enhance the ability of courts
to effectively and efficiently adjudicate cases, including court
reporting, due process, case managers, and case management
technology. Specifically, the trial courts are seeking funding for:
o Additional stenographer and digital court reporting positions, as
well as additional funding for related contractual services;
o Court interpreter, expert witness, and senior judge resources;
o Additional case managers to support effective case management
and ensure that cases are processed timely; and
o Ensuring that each judicial circuit has a foundational level of
case management technology to view court documents and
receive and respond to court filings.

• Management by chief judges and court administration of existing
resources within a judicial circuit, such as temporary reassignment of
judges based on vacancies elsewhere in the circuit.

In summary, the Committee finds that any potential benefits of
consolidation would not outweigh the potential impact and disruption of
consolidation, and that less disruptive adjustments exist to address the
challenges discussed above.
E. Misconceptions on Effects of Consolidation
The Committee separately notes some common misconceptions indicated
in the survey responses. Many survey respondents expressed concerns that
consolidation would increase caseloads and result in the closure of existing
county courthouses, requiring people to drive longer distances to attend court
as jurors or litigants.
However, the Committee determined that consolidation of judicial
circuits would not affect caseloads, as the general statewide levels of criminal
and civil filings would not change. This is true in part because of the second
misconception, specifically that consolidation would somehow impact venue.
Lawsuits may only be filed in a proper venue, which is based on, for example,
the county where the crime occurred, the county where the cause of action
accrued, or the county where the property in litigation is located. 119 Circuit
consolidation would have no impact on the proper venue for legal proceedings.
Finally, consolidation of judicial circuits likely would not have resulted in
the closure of courthouses. Doing so would only render judicial administration
more inconvenient for members of the public, who have already invested

119 See, e.g., §§ 47.011, 47.021, 910.03, Fla. Stat (2023).

30
Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee

taxpayer funds in those facilities. Therefore, it is unlikely that consolidation
would have required people to drive longer distances to attend court.

F. Suggestions Beyond the Scope of the Charges
The Committee’s extensive outreach and input efforts also yielded
suggestions that went beyond the scope of its charges, as prescribed in
Administrative Order No. AOSC23-35, which was limited to studying the
specific issue of consolidating (i.e., reducing the number of) the state’s judicial
circuits. The Committee did not engage in any analysis of these suggestions
and is not expressing a view on any of these suggestions, because these
suggestions were not within the parameters of the Committee’s charges.

IV. Recommendation
The exercise of studying whether a need exists to consolidate Florida’s
judicial circuits proved to be worthwhile. Through this exercise, the Committee
identified challenges affecting judicial circuits’ operations and noted the
potential benefit of uniformity that could be realized through consolidation.
However, the Committee gave great weight to the opposition voiced by the
majority of court users and justice system entities. The Committee concluded
that consolidation was not a necessary solution to identified challenges nor
necessary to produce uniformity. Reviewing input from members of the public
and professionals who work in the court system, and analyzing myriad data on
court operations, helped the Committee consider ways to improve services to
court users and further the judicial branch’s vision of accessible, fair, effective,
responsive, and accountable justice.
After comprehensive review and careful consideration of the public
comments, survey responses, written correspondence, and data, and in
consideration of the criteria in Rule 2.241 and Administrative Order No.
AOSC23-35, the Committee unanimously recommends no consolidation of
judicial circuits. The Committee concludes that the potential adverse impacts
and disruptive effects of consolidation significantly outweigh any potential
benefits. As outlined in section III. of this report, the Committee also concludes
that less disruptive adjustments exist to address challenges facing judicial
circuits.

Appendix
Analytical templates for all 20 judicial circuits.

31