There is no question that Florida’s judicial model is somewhat unique, but the question remains: is it based on laziness, and can it be dangerous?

Florida’s judicial model, where judges sometimes ask parties to submit their own versions of rulings for signature, is relatively unusual in the United States but not entirely unique. While other states have practices that delegate some decision-making tasks to attorneys, the specific practice of judges relying heavily on party-drafted orders is more pronounced in Florida.

Some states may allow attorneys to draft proposed orders, especially in routine or uncontested matters, but it is less common for judges to sign these without significant review or modification. Florida’s model stands out due to how frequently this practice is employed, especially in civil and family law cases, and how often judges may sign the version submitted by one party rather than writing a comprehensive opinion themselves.

This practice is part of a broader trend in judicial systems across the U.S. for managing heavy caseloads. Still, the reliance on party-submitted rulings is more pronounced in Florida than in most other states.

There is no doubt that this is an unusual practice that has sparked both curiosity and controversy.

The Tradition Explained

In many states, a judge takes time to write their own opinion after hearing a case. This opinion, whether a ruling on a motion, a summary judgment, or a verdict, represents the judge’s independent assessment of the law, the facts, and the parties involved. However, in Florida, particularly in certain civil and family court cases, judges sometimes take a different approach. Rather than writing their own ruling, they ask the attorneys for each party to submit proposed orders or judgments.

Once these submissions are reviewed, the judge will choose one, usually without making significant changes. The order is then signed, filed, and becomes part of the public record. This practice can expedite the decision-making process and relieve judges from the burden of drafting lengthy opinions. Still, it has significant implications for the fairness and integrity of the judicial system.

The Case for Efficiency

Advocates of this practice argue that it improves efficiency in an often overloaded court system. Judges are busy professionals with heavy caseloads, and writing detailed opinions for every case can be time-consuming. By delegating the task of drafting orders to the attorneys, the judge can move through cases more quickly, which helps clear dockets and reduce the backlog many courts face.

Additionally, lawyers with specialized knowledge of the case at hand are often better equipped to draft orders that reflect the legal arguments and facts of the case. They have access to all the relevant documents, evidence, and legal precedents, which may allow them to craft rulings that are more precise than a judge might be able to on their own in a short time. This can lead to a more streamlined process, allowing the court to focus on resolving disputes rather than spending time drafting legal language.

Concerns Over Fairness and Accountability

However, this practice is not without its critics. One of the major concerns is that it undermines judicial accountability. Judges are appointed to their positions because they are trusted to make independent, impartial decisions based on their knowledge of the law. By relying on lawyers to write the rulings, the judge may appear to be abdicating their responsibility to apply the law fairly and thoughtfully. If a judge signs an order without carefully considering it, they may be leaving too much power in the hands of the attorneys, who may have an incentive to draft orders that favor their clients.

This process can also be especially problematic when there is a lack of transparency. While attorneys may submit their versions of the ruling with their arguments clearly outlined, there’s no guarantee that a judge will have thoroughly scrutinized every detail. If a judge signs an order written by one party’s lawyer without a deep understanding of the legal arguments, this could lead to biased or even legally flawed rulings.

The Potential Dangers

The most dangerous consequence of this practice is the potential for injustice.

If judges do not fully engage in the decision-making process and sign off on the motions drafted by attorneys, there’s a risk that the ruling might be based on an incomplete understanding of the law or the facts. Legal issues might be overlooked or misunderstood, leading to unfair rulings. This is especially concerning in complex cases or those involving vulnerable parties, where a judge’s expertise and careful analysis are critical to ensuring a just outcome.

The stakes are even higher in cases involving self-represented litigants or individuals with limited access to legal resources.

These parties may not have the same level of expertise as lawyers and could be disadvantaged if their lawyer-drafted motion is given preference over their arguments. The judge’s role should be to ensure that all parties are treated fairly. Still, if the judge relies too heavily on one side’s submission, it may inadvertently tip the scale of justice in favor of the more privileged party.

Will this practice expand to other states and destroy justice?

While the Florida judicial model of asking parties to submit their own versions of the ruling may have some benefits in terms of efficiency, it is not without grave risks for parties that lack the resources to research the law, examine the facts, and craft an elegant ruling that exhibits fairness over the paid advocacy of the issue.

Bottom line…

As we have seen in the various cases involving Donald Trump, essential questions about the role of judges in ensuring justice are unresolved as activist judges pervert the law and introduce their own partisan politics into the proceedings.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve