I have written and spoken repeatedly about the challenge of being a Florida Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC). There are deadlines, workload challenges, legal complexities, and more. It is not an easy job by any estimation. As I have studied adjudication and the many American systems, I long ago concluded that no judge is subject to more scrutiny and deadlines than the Florida JCC.
This stems largely from section 440.25, with time parameters for mandatory mediation, pretrial, and final hearings. The primary concerns are mediation within 130 days and trial within 210. Much can influence those, including delays in care, challenges in discovery, and more. The requirement of a trial order within 30 days is shorter, but more in the judge's control. Those timelines are exceeded periodically in a particular case, but overall, the averages are attainable.
Too few today remember the old days. In the 1990s, it was not uncommon to wait a year or more after trial. When the judge eventually ruled, it was no order. Instead, the judges sent out "ruling letters" explaining in little detail why a party prevailed. This instructed one of the parties to draft a proposed order. Some judges even instructed the non-prevailing party to collaborate in drafting an order adverse to their interests. It was a confusing time, and one in which delay was systemic, lamentable, but simply accepted.
I am reminded of timeliness each year as I prepare the OJCC Annual Report. This examines the statutory parameters above. But in the report season, I ran across a story on WSAV (Savannah) regarding a County Judge who is defending a Judicial Qualifications Commission complaint about tardiness. He is "answering questions about why he isn’t ruling on cases quickly, if at all." The first of those is troubling, but the "if at all" is disturbing.
A "10-count" complaint alleges that Judge Tom Bordeaux
"did not handle a dozen or more cases in a timely manner, cases that took years to come to a conclusion with some still outstanding due to Bordeaux’ inaction."
To his credit, the judge has acknowledged the facts. He repeatedly testified, “I dropped the ball on this one. I readily admit that." His diligence and timeliness have been called into question. More recently, that has been in this complaint, but lawyers noted that they have previously engaged with phone calls, letters, and even pleadings filed.
The judge claims that "overwhelming workload" and the pandemic contribute to his timeliness. He also explains that his rulings are detailed and therefore require significant time to prepare. He says, "That’s why one of the reasons why I write so much, a novel type order is not new, but it is wordy."
The fact is that no order requires more than 30 days to prepare, proof, and publish. I have served now for almost 25 years, and I have written hundreds of trial orders. Some of those were short, but some exceeded 100 pages. I have reviewed trial records that were thousands of pages (one stack of records exceeded thirty inches).
Any judge can issue timely orders. The challenge is never with can or can not, but is will or will not. Timeliness is a choice. Judge Bordeaux was asked how he will rectify the delays in his work, that is "improve." He said he cannot ensure that delays will not persist, but he "can try and make it better."
Judge Bordeaux testified that more budget, more staff, and a "full-time associate judge" might help with the delays. Having someone else to do your work for you will almost always help your workload, but the other person may be as unproductive as you are.
The article concludes with his commitment to not seek another term in 2028, when he will be 74 years old. William Gladstone is credited with "Justice delayed is justice denied." Many a party in the 1990s, Florida workers' compensation learned that. There were those who waited years for a decision and often settled out of pure, unadulterated frustration.
No, the simple fact is that if workload and volume are the issue, then all judges in a system would demonstrate the same delays and disappointments. When a single judge is an outlier example, there is reason for concern. It is appropriate that the Georgia system is conducting an inquiry.
That the orders are late matters. Why the orders are late may matter. But critically, the attorneys and the public deserve to know both the what and the why. The judge is first a public servant, and performance must be effective, efficient, and timely.
