RULE 2.241. DETERMINATION OF THE NECESSITY TO
INCREASE, DECREASE, OR REDEFINE JUDICIAL
CIRCUITS AND APPELLATE DISTRICTS

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to establish uniform
criteria for the supreme court’s determination of the necessity for
increasing, decreasing, or redefining judicial circuits and appellate
districts as required by article V, section 9, of the Florida
Constitution. This rule also provides for an assessment committee
and a certification process to assist the court in certifying to the
legislature its findings and recommendations concerning such need.
(b) Certification Process. A certification process shall be
completed in conjunction with the supreme court’s annual
determination regarding the need for judges under Florida Rule of
General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240(d) and in
accordance with the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A) expedites appropriate cases;

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

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

(D) handles its workload in a manner permitting
its judges to serve on committees for the judicial system.
(2) Efficiency. Factors to be considered for this criterion
are the extent to which each court:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(5) Public Trust and Confidence. Factors to be
considered for this criterion are the extent to which each court:
(A) handles workload in a manner permitting its
judges adequate time for community involvement;

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A) expedites appropriate cases;

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

(C) functions in a collegial manner;

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

(E) handles its workload in a manner permitting
its judges to harmonize decisions of their court with those of other
district courts or to certify conflict when appropriate;
(F) handles its workload in a manner permitting
its judges to have adequate time to review all decisions rendered by
the court;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(C) orders and opinions of a court are available in
a timely and efficient manner.
(4) Professionalism. Factors to be considered for this
criterion are the extent to which each court:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee Notes

District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction
Committee Notes 2006 Adoption. Article V, section 9 of the
Florida constitution states that:
The supreme court shall establish by rule uniform criteria for
the determination of the need for additional judges except supreme
court justices, the necessity for decreasing the number of judges
and for increasing, decreasing or redefining appellate districts. If
the supreme court finds that a need exists for . . . increasing,
decreasing or redefining appellate districts . . . , it shall, prior to the
next regular session of the legislature, certify to the legislature its
findings and recommendations concerning such need.
(Emphasis added.) Thus, the constitution uses only “need”
when describing the uniform criteria for certifying additional judges,
but uses both “necessity” and “need” when describing the uniform
criteria for increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts.
The supreme court has never determined whether this language
compels differing tests for the two certifications. Subdivision (c) of
this rule uses the phrase “certify a necessity.” The Committee on
District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction determined that
the two standards set forth in that subdivision recognize the
supreme court’s obligation to recommend a change to the structure
of the district courts when circumstances reach the level of
necessity that compels a change, but also recognize the court’s
discretion to recommend a change to the structure of the district
courts when improvements are needed.
The criteria set forth in this rule are based on studies of the
workload, jurisdiction, and performance of the appellate courts, and
the work of the Committee on District Court of Appeal Workload
and Jurisdiction in 2005. In establishing these criteria, substantial
reliance was placed on empirical research conducted by judicial
branch committees and on other statistical data concerning cases,
caseloads, timeliness of case processing, and manner for disposition
of cases, collected by the Office of the State Courts Administrator
Office as required by section 25.075, Florida Statutes (2004), and
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.030(e)(2).
The workload and jurisdiction committee considered the
impact of computer technology on appellate districts. It is clear
that, at this time or in the future, technology can be deployed to
allow litigants efficient access to a court for filing of pleadings and
for participation in oral argument, and that it can expand the
general public’s access to the courts. It is possible that technology
will substantially alter the appellate review process in the future
and that appellate courts may find that technology permits or even
requires different districting techniques. This rule was designed to
allow these issues to be addressed by the assessment committee
and the supreme court without mandating any specific approach.
The five basic criteria in subdivision (d) are not listed in any
order of priority. Thus, for example, the workload and jurisdiction
committee did not intend efficiency to be a more important criterion
than engendering public trust and confidence.
Subdivision (d)(2)(A) recognizes that the court currently
provides the legislature with an annual measurement of the
appellate courts’ “clearance rate,” which is the ratio between the
number of cases that are resolved during a fiscal year and the new
cases that are filed during the same period. Thus, a clearance rate
of one hundred percent reflects a court that is disposing of pending
cases at approximately the same rate that new cases arrive. Given
that other measurements may be selected in the future, the rule
does not mandate sole reliance on this measurement.
Subdivision (d)(5)(E) recognizes that a district court’s
geographic territory may be so large that it limits or discourages
applicants for judicial vacancies from throughout the district and
creates the perception that a court’s judges do not reflect the
makeup of the territory.

Court Commentary

2013 Amendment. The rule has been amended so the
supreme court’s annual certification process will include an
analysis of the need to increase, decrease, or redefine judicial
circuits. The requirement for an assessment committee to analyze,
once every eight years, the capacity of the district courts to fulfill
their duties has been deleted. Instead, the chief judges of the trial
and appellate courts will review annual statistics provided by the
state courts administrator, along with the criteria set forth in the
rule and any other relevant factors, and inform the chief justice of
any perceived need. Taking these and other concerns into
consideration, the supreme court may appoint an assessment
committee to make further inquiry. If an assessment committee is
appointed, the supreme court will consider the committee’s
recommendations and will certify to the legislature its own findings
and recommendations concerning such need.