• Legal experts, lawmakers, and police chiefs in Florida expressed concerns about the proposed consolidation of the state’s judicial circuits during Friday’s Judicial Circuit Assessment Committee meeting.
• Discussions focused on potential operational disruptions and the preservation of local identities in smaller circuit jurisdictions.
• Critics argue that consolidation could harm established relationships, erode public trust, lead to logistical challenges, and fail to provide significant cost savings.

A growing chorus of legal experts, lawmakers, and police chiefs in Florida raised concerns on Friday regarding the proposed consolidation of the state’s judicial circuits.

Sustaining the ethos of the initial meeting on August 4, discussions largely focused on operational disruptions and the preservation of local identities in smaller circuit jurisdictions.

“I would suggest if you create mega-circuits … you’re going to lose the people that have worked in those circuits as those judges, those attorneys, and those public defenders,” said 3rd Judicial Circuit Public Defender Cliff Wilson, who spoke during the public hearing portion of Friday’s meeting. “Relationships we build in those circuits equate to efficiency, effectiveness, and public trust in the judicial system.”

Rep. Yvonne Hinson, who appeared at the meeting, referred to the consolidation proposition as “dangerous territory,” pointing to the state’s legal system as one of “trust.”

Consolidating for political reasons, she said, erodes the established trust and sows division among constituents. Hinson also pointed to future budget constrictions, which would need to be overhauled on a circuit-by-circuit basis to accommodate new geographic areas that necessitate unique resources.

Panama City Beach Police Chief Eusebio Talamantez provided written opposition to the committee and questioned the logistical basis of the move, stating that following through with the proposal would impede proceedings within his circuit.

“The potential ramifications for our local legal representatives, particularly the State Attorney, are profound and warrant serious consideration,” he said. “The potential challenges and disruptions introduced by the proposed consolidation far outweigh any perceived benefits.”

Attorneys also raised apprehensions toward potential IT concerns, with long-serving resources that assist in logistical operations allegedly being put at risk, should circuits conjoin with one another.

“When we may have to deal with circuits that utilize differing internet services, that’s not going to be an easy task,” said an unnamed attorney. “What that results in is injustice, which would happen across Florida if consolidation takes place.”

Attorney Steven Brown questioned assertions that consolidation would result in cost savings, framing the amount shaved off of expenditures against the state’s $117 billion budget.

“There would be no articulable increase in efficiency,” said Brown. “Circuitwide management and resources would be spread thin. Any cost-saving efforts would amount to nothing more than a rounding error in the state’s huge budget.”

The committee responsible for studying the proposal, chaired by Judge Jonathan D. Gerber of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, was formed following a letter penned by House Speaker Paul Renner that suggested consolidating the circuits could result in enhanced public trust and improve the efficiency of the judicial process.

The Florida Bar Board of Governors has voiced reservations regarding the consolidation process, however, citing the need for a more robust justification. This sentiment reflects broader concerns within the legal community. Glenn Kelley, representing the state’s Chief Judges earlier this month , reported ongoing efforts to formulate a collective response, underscoring the depth of concern among judicial leaders.

Chief Justice Carlos G. Munoz supported the need for consideration and study of whether to consolidate Florida’s judicial circuits and emphasized that the committee should focus on determining the necessity of consolidation.

“Without expressing any view on the merits at this time, the Court agrees that the question of whether there is a need to consolidate Florida’s judicial circuits deserves thoughtful consideration and careful study,” wrote Chief Justice Carlos G. Munoz in a past administrative order. “To that end, and to aid the Court in making its ultimate determination, the Court believes it would be beneficial to appoint an assessment committee.”

To assess interest in the consolidation, further outreach is underway through a survey that utilizes a five-point scale across six criteria areas, including expenditures, judicial frameworks, and potential issues. This survey aims to gauge the feelings and opinions of stakeholders about facilitating the consolidation.

Committee members reported on Friday that 3,500 professional surveys have been completed thus far, with roughly 45 percent of submitted forms coming from private attorneys. State attorneys and assistant state attorneys make up the second most represented sector, and representation for each circuit is accounted for.

An email to the committee, however, contends that the survey proves redundant.

“I started to take this survey and I finally gave up because the repeated “consolidation” questions were frustrating and unnecessary,” Wrote Bruce Rogow to the committee in an Aug. 10th email.  “No, because consolidation in my circuit (17) would yield no benefits, and “yes” to the question of additional resources is the answer to those repeated questions.”