Florida Supreme Court Requires Online Publication of Local Rules and Administrative Orders and Establishes Electronic Permanence for Court Records

Florida Supreme Court Requires Online Publication of Local Rules and Administrative Orders and Establishes Electronic Permanence for Court Records

Introduction

In this administrative rulemaking opinion, the Supreme Court of Florida adopts targeted amendments to three Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration: rule 2.215 (Trial Court Administration), rule 2.265 (Municipal Ordinance Violations), and rule 2.430 (Retention of Court Records). The amendments, proposed by The Florida Bar’s Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee and refined in response to public comment from several circuit chief judges, advance three core objectives:

  • Transparency and accessibility: requiring circuit courts to publish current local court rules and administrative orders online, and to preserve access to rescinded or vacated versions.
  • Statutory alignment: removing rule text on municipal-ordinance costs and fine-collection practices that are governed by statute.
  • Modernized recordkeeping: recognizing electronic records as the permanent court record format and clarifying how the records retention schedule applies after digital conversion.

Exercising its constitutional authority over practice and procedure (art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.) and following rulemaking procedures in rule 2.140(b)(1), the Court orders these amendments to take effect December 1, 2025, at 12:01 a.m. A motion for rehearing will not alter the effective date.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Rule 2.215 (Trial Court Administration): Amends subdivision (e) to require:
    • Publication of current local court rules and administrative orders of a general and continuing nature on each circuit court’s website.
    • Retention and availability for inspection (and for copying upon payment) of current and vacated or rescinded local court rules and administrative orders.
    • An annual review directed by the chief judge to ensure local administrative orders remain current and conflict-free.
  • Rule 2.265 (Municipal Ordinance Violations):
    • Removes a sentence in subdivision (b) that set a fixed, capped schedule for certain court costs, and deletes prior subdivision (c) on municipal fine collection—both topics being governed by statute.
    • Retains the requirement that chief judges establish a costs schedule by administrative order “in conformity with Florida law.”
    • Renumbers the “Style of Municipal Ordinance Cases” provision as subdivision (c).
  • Rule 2.430 (Retention of Court Records):
    • Replaces legacy terms such as “permanently recorded records” with “electronic court records,” expressly treating electronic format as the permanent record medium when created to Supreme Court standards.
    • Clarifies that once paper or other physical media are properly converted into electronic court records (see rule 2.525(c)(4)), the originals may be destroyed after final judgment (subject to exceptions like exhibits), and the electronic records are then maintained pursuant to the records retention schedule.
    • Retitles subdivision (c) to “Records Retention Schedule” and clarifies its applicability to digitally imaged items.

The Court also incorporates drafting and style changes consistent with In re Guidelines for Rules Submissions, Florida Administrative Order No. AOSC22-78.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

  • Florida Constitution, art. V, § 2(a): Vests the Supreme Court of Florida with the power to adopt rules for practice and procedure in all courts. This constitutional authority grounds the Court’s jurisdiction to amend the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration.
  • Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(b)(1): Provides the procedural framework for proposing and adopting rule amendments, including publication for comment. The Court followed this process; the Committee published proposals, the Court solicited comments, received one, and the Committee revised accordingly.
  • In re Guidelines for Rules Submissions, AOSC22-78 (Fla. Oct. 24, 2022): An administrative order setting drafting conventions for rule text, notably favoring “must” over “shall,” and promoting plain language and uniform structure. The opinion expressly notes the application of these guidelines, reflected in textual refinements (e.g., shall → must) across the amended provisions.

Notably, the Court also acknowledges that certain subjects addressed in prior rule text—specifically municipal court costs and the collection of outstanding fines—are set by statute. The rule amendments therefore remove duplicative or potentially conflicting language and defer to the Legislature’s enactments on those topics.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is pragmatic and structural: it aligns court administrative rules with modern practices, statutory law, and public access imperatives without altering substantive rights.

  • Public transparency and access (Rule 2.215(e)):
    • Local court rules and administrative orders often shape day-to-day practice in significant ways. By requiring online publication of current rules and orders, the Court removes information friction and eliminates the risk that operative guidance is difficult to locate or inconsistently disseminated across Florida’s circuits.
    • Requiring retention and availability of rescinded or vacated versions addresses a recurring need in litigation and appellate practice: to confirm what rule or order was in effect on a prior date. This ensures a reliable historical record that can be inspected as a public record and copied upon payment of duplication costs.
    • The annual review mandate fosters internal quality control, reducing conflicts with Supreme Court rules and keeping local directives up to date.
  • Statutory alignment and role clarity (Rule 2.265):
    • The Court removes a fixed dollar cap and collection procedures from the rule because these are matters of statute. The rule now simply directs that chief judges establish a schedule of costs by administrative order “in conformity with Florida law.”
    • This approach eliminates the risk of conflict between court rules and evolving statutory frameworks governing costs and collections in municipal ordinance prosecutions.
  • Electronic permanence and retention (Rule 2.430):
    • The definitional shift to “electronic court records” recognizes electronic format—as created in accordance with Supreme Court standards—as the functional equivalent of what older rules called “permanently recorded records.”
    • Subdivision (b) expressly links conversion to rule 2.525(c)(4), clarifying that once records are properly digitized, the physical originals (except exhibits or documents required by other rules to be kept in original form) may be destroyed after a final judgment becomes final.
    • The “Records Retention Schedule” in subdivision (c) remains the controlling framework for how long court records must be kept, including those created or preserved in electronic form. Some categories may be designated as permanent; others will have finite retention periods. The amendment removes any ambiguity about whether digitally imaged materials fall within the schedule—they do.

Impact

  • Judicial circuits and clerks:
    • Must ensure that websites display all current local rules and administrative orders of general and continuing effect. Because “current” status can change frequently, circuits should implement editorial workflows and version control to update promptly.
    • Must retain and provide access to rescinded or vacated rules and administrative orders for inspection and copying. Circuits should consider archiving strategies (e.g., dedicated “archived orders” pages) to comply efficiently and predictably with public records obligations embedded in the rule text.
    • Must conduct an annual review of local administrative orders to keep them current and harmonious with Supreme Court and local rules. This invites standardized audit checklists and cross-circuit coordination.
  • Practitioners and litigants:
    • Obtain more reliable and uniform access to the operative and historical versions of local rules and administrative orders—reducing uncertainty and the risk of inadvertent noncompliance.
    • May rely on posted materials in motion practice or appeals to demonstrate which local directive applied at a relevant time.
  • Municipal ordinance prosecutions:
    • Costs and fine-collection procedures are governed by statute; the RULE now expressly defers to “Florida law” and omits a former $50 cap and collection language. This reduces confusion and ensures that any legislative updates are immediately operative without necessitating further rule amendments.
  • Recordkeeping and e-governance:
    • The rule recognizes electronic records as the permanent court record format when created to the Supreme Court’s standards. This supports e-filing and e-records ecosystems, reduces physical storage burdens, and can improve retrieval, interoperability, and disaster recovery.
    • By clarifying the applicability of the records retention schedule to electronically imaged items, the rule promotes consistency and reduces disputes about when and how originals may be destroyed after conversion.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Local court rule vs. administrative order:
    • Local court rules are rules of practice adopted by local judges, approved by the Supreme Court, and applicable within a circuit or county. They often address procedural logistics specific to a locality.
    • Administrative orders are directives issued by the chief judge to manage court operations and case administration within the circuit. Those “of a general and continuing nature” are now expressly subject to posting requirements.
  • Public inspection and duplication:
    • When the rule says documents must be “available for inspection as a public record,” it means members of the public are entitled to review them. Copies must be provided upon payment of the cost of duplication. This codifies accessibility in line with Florida’s broad public records norms.
  • Electronic court records as “permanent”:
    • Previously, “permanent” often referred to microfilmed or otherwise “permanently recorded” paper records. The amended definition recognizes properly created electronic records as the permanent record medium.
    • Once a paper filing is converted into an electronic court record consistent with standards (see rule 2.525(c)(4)), the paper may generally be destroyed after final judgment (with exceptions, such as exhibits).
  • Records retention schedule:
    • A court-approved schedule prescribing how long court records must be kept. Some categories are permanent; others have time-limited retention. The schedule applies to electronic records, including those produced by scanning paper documents.
  • Municipal ordinance prosecutions in county court:
    • County courts try municipal ordinance violations. The case style remains “City of [Name] v. [Defendant].” The amount and structure of court costs and the mechanisms for collecting fines are controlled by statute; the rule points to “Florida law” rather than imposing its own caps or procedures.

Operational Considerations and Best Practices

  • For chief judges:
    • Designate staff or a committee to manage a centralized online repository of current and archived local rules and administrative orders, with clear version dates and rescission notices.
    • Institute the required annual review, documenting checks for conflicts with Supreme Court and local rules.
  • For clerks of court:
    • Ensure indexing and recording of local rules and administrative orders in each applicable county remain robust and synchronized with online postings.
    • Confirm digitization processes meet Supreme Court standards so that electronic records qualify as the permanent record; establish protocols for disposing of paper originals and physical media post-conversion, consistent with rule 2.430(b) and the retention schedule.
  • For municipalities and prosecutors:
    • Review statutory provisions governing costs and collections, and coordinate with chief judges to ensure any cost schedules adopted by administrative order align with current statutes.
  • For practitioners:
    • Rely on circuit websites for current local rules and administrative orders, and preserve screenshots or downloads where the historical version may be relevant to an issue of retroactivity or compliance at an earlier date.

Conclusion

This opinion advances three significant, practice-shaping directives: (1) a clear mandate that local rules and administrative orders be posted online—with historical versions available for inspection—enhancing transparency and predictability; (2) an express deference to statutes for municipal-ordinance costs and fine-collection procedures, reducing conflict between rules and legislation; and (3) a modernization of recordkeeping that recognizes electronic records, created to Supreme Court standards, as the permanent court record, while clarifying the reach of the records retention schedule to digitized materials.

Collectively, these changes streamline court administration, improve public access, and align the Rules with contemporary e-court practices and statutory frameworks. Courts, clerks, and practitioners should use the runway to the December 1, 2025 effective date to update policies, websites, and internal workflows to ensure seamless compliance.

Case Details

Comments