Aggressive case management and tough sanctions are needed to bring about a ‘cultural change’
Court hears arguments on civil rules proposals meant to ensure 'the fair and timely resolution of all cases through effective case management'
Chief Judge Robert Morris
Major reforms are needed to combat a “culture of non-compliance” in Florida’s civil trial system, proponents of a Judicial Management Council workgroup’s sweeping rules petition told the Supreme Court during oral arguments on Thursday.
Second District Court of Appeal Chief Judge Robert Morris, who chairs the Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases, said the proposal’s call for aggressive case management and tough sanctions are needed to bring about a “cultural change.”
“Yes, sanctions are everywhere in our report and we’ve not recommended this because we’re autocratic, but because we recognize a growing culture of noncompliance in the absence of consequences for failing to follow the rules,” he said.
Sanctions are also necessary to “force popularly elected judges to compel lawyers to follow the rules,” he said.
Critics warned that the workgroup is calling for too much change, too soon, without evidence it will work.
“Justice shouldn’t be taken by storm,” said Civil Procedure Rules Committee Chair Lance Curry. “The problem here is, there are no assurances that that it is going to be worth it.”
Curry noted that Florida’s civil courts eliminated 60% of a pandemic-related case backlog without major reforms. Moving too swiftly could make the courts less efficient, he warned.
“It’s going to…create massive litigation for years to come,” Curry said.
Curry argued that procedural rules shouldn’t be changed to target a few bad actors.
“I feel like several of these proposals are written to address the few unethical attorneys or judges that can’t control their dockets,” he said.
Justice Charles T. Canady
Justice Charles Canady said the problem is more “pervasive” and clients are paying the price.
“A lot of the abuses that are taking place are unfair to the people that are on the receiving end,” he said. “We’re trying to take care of that.”
Canady was chief justice in 2019 when he formed the workgroup and directed it to ensure “the fair and timely resolution of all cases through effective case management.” The panel was also directed to “utilize caseload and other workload information to manage resources and promote accountability.”
In January, the workgroup filed a 450-page final report, along with proposed amendments to Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, Rules of Civil Procedure, Small Claims Rules, and Rules of Mediation.
Prior to that, the workgroup circulated an initial draft to various stakeholders, including rules committees, and adopted many of their suggestions.
The proposed changes call for establishing a “differentiated case management” system and setting inflexible trial dates at the beginning of a case and rigid deadlines for motions and rulings. Judges and lawyers who fail to meet the timelines would face sanctions, including attorney fees and case dismissals.
The proposal generated 68 comments.
The workgroup adopted many of the recommended revisions, but declined to phase in the proposal or eliminate the sanctions.
Chief Justice Carlos Muniz
Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz praised the workgroup for taking such a comprehensive approach, but pressed Morris and other panel members to identify one or two key provisions.
“What do you think are the one or two things that would give us the most bang for our buck?” Muñiz said.
Morris said the panel discussed phasing in the changes but concluded it couldn’t be done.
“It’s like peeling an orange,” he said. “It becomes very hard to separate things like motions from sanctions.”
Justice Jamie Grosshans put the same question to Curry.
“Is there any top three things that this committee disagrees with?” she asked.
Curry said a “big concern” is lack of judicial discretion.
“The critical part of our system is getting a just decision,” he said.
Judge Jennifer Bailey
Eleventh Circuit Administrative Judge Jennifer Bailey, a workgroup member, warned that reforms are necessary because Florida’s civil justice system is failing its citizens.
“There’s a fundamental truth that’s being missed here,” Bailey said. “Regular people, they just don’t come to court. They’ve abandoned hope that they can get their problems heard.”
