The Florida Supreme Court issued amendments to three Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration on Dec. 18, addressing widespread confusion between local rules and administrative orders that has persisted in trial courts across the state.

The court amended Rules 2.120, 2.140, and 2.215 following a multi-year review process that began in 2021 when Chief Justice Charles Canady established the Workgroup on Judicial Practices in the Trial Courts through Administrative Order No. AOSC21-57.

The workgroup was tasked with reviewing how trial judges implement procedures in their individual courtrooms to determine whether the instructions were accessible, understandable, and consistent with court rules and law. During its comprehensive review, the workgroup identified significant confusion regarding the distinction between local rules and administrative orders.

Following the workgroup's findings, the court referred the matter to the Local Rule Advisory Committee (LRAC) to review the report and determine whether rule amendments were necessary to provide clarification. The LRAC subsequently filed a report proposing amendments to the three rules.

The court published the LRAC's proposal for public comment, receiving three comments. The LRAC then filed a response that included an updated proposal based on the feedback received.

The amendments establish clear distinctions between the two types of court directives. Under the new Rule 2.120 definitions, chief judges may issue administrative orders to establish rules of practice or procedure, but only if they are not inconsistent with the constitution, court rules, local court rules, or the Supreme Court's administrative orders.

The amended definitions in Rule 2.120 also clarify that local court rules specifically address matters required by the Florida Constitution, general law, rules of court, or supreme court opinions to be adopted in local court rules. This distinction helps practitioners understand when a directive constitutes a formal local rule versus an administrative order.

Rule 2.215, which governs trial court administration, was amended to simplify the process for promulgating local court rules. The court also modified Rule 2.140, which addresses amending rules of court, to align with the changes made to Rule 2.215.

The amendments represent the culmination of a four-year process that began with Chief Justice Canady's recognition that trial court practices needed systematic review. The workgroup's mandate was to ensure that judicial instructions were not only legally compliant but also accessible and understandable to practitioners.

The distinction between local rules and administrative orders has practical implications for attorneys practicing in Florida's trial courts. Local rules typically require more formal adoption procedures and carry different legal weight than administrative orders. The confusion addressed by these amendments could affect case strategy, compliance requirements, and procedural expectations.

Local rules generally address substantive matters that the Florida Constitution, statutes, or court rules specifically delegate to local adoption. Administrative orders, by contrast, are used by chief judges to manage court operations and establish practice procedures within their administrative authority.

The amendments provide clearer guidance for chief judges about when to use administrative orders versus proposing local rules. This clarity should help ensure consistency across Florida's 20 judicial circuits while maintaining appropriate local flexibility.

The Supreme Court's action reflects ongoing efforts to modernize and clarify Florida's court rules. The court has jurisdiction over rule amendments under Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution and Rule 2.140(d) of the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration.

The per curiam opinion notes that complete details of the amendments are included in an appendix, though the full appendix was not included in the available court documents. The amendments take effect according to the court's standard implementation timeline for rule changes.

These changes follow other recent efforts by the Florida Supreme Court to streamline court procedures and reduce confusion among practitioners. The systematic approach taken by the workgroup and LRAC demonstrates the court's commitment to evidence-based rule development.

The amendments should help attorneys better understand which court directives require formal compliance as local rules versus those that constitute administrative guidance. This clarity may reduce inadvertent procedural violations and improve overall court efficiency.

For practitioners, the amendments underscore the importance of distinguishing between different types of court directives when developing case strategies and ensuring procedural compliance. The clarified definitions should make it easier for attorneys to understand their obligations under various court directives.

The multi-year review process also highlights the collaborative approach taken by the Florida Supreme Court in developing rule amendments, involving both specialized workgroups and advisory committees while seeking public input before finalizing changes.