Roberts blasts inadequate pay for judges

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | December 31, 2006 | PETE YOST

[indcons]

Pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary's independence, Chief Justice John Roberts says in a year-end report critical of Congress.

Issuing an eight-page message devoted exclusively to salaries, Roberts says the 678 full-time U.S. District Court judges, the backbone of the federal judiciary, are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools.

In the 1950s, 65 percent of U.S. District Court judges came from the practicing bar and 35 percent came from the public sector. Today the situation is reversed, Roberts said, with 60 percent from the public sector and less than 40 percent from private practice.

Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100.

Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years.

The issue of pay, says Roberts, "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis."

"Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, and if tenure in office is made uncertain, the strength and independence judges need to uphold the rule of law - even when it is unpopular to do so - will be seriously eroded," Roberts wrote.

[cinives]

These guys are a thin black line between us and pure socialism.

You think Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy and Breyer, the majority of judges on the 9th Circuit, and all the rest of the Clinton appointees are keeping us from socialism ? Oh boy, you are deluded for sure. I'd be happy to think these people will quit because the pay is too low.

[GovernmentShrinker]

There is also a huge loss of privacy, and of freedom to say whatever you want to say whenever and wherever you want to say it. It's not just a heap of "power and prestige".

[GovernmentShrinker]

$200,000 a year in the Washington or NYC areas is not "poverty", but it is too little to maximize one's focus on one's job responsibilities and related intellectual development -- things I would really hope a federal judge would be doing. Assuming one is supporting children, one can get by on $200,000 a year in expensive metropolitan areas only by doing mundane daily tasks in a way that saves money rather than in a way that saves time.

[kerryusama04]

You think Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy and Breyer, the majority of judges on the 9th Circuit, and all the rest of the Clinton appointees are keeping us from socialism ? Oh boy, you are deluded for sure. I'd be happy to think these people will quit because the pay is too low.

There are two sides to every coin. Which side do you think is more affected by income, the capitalist-originalist side or the socialist-communist side?

[cinives]

Since the democrats are the "party of the little people" and just coincidentally have a higher per capita income than conservatives, I'd have to say that liberals/socialists are at least as motivated by money as conservatives.

[Publius Valerius]

I'd be happy to think these people will quit because the pay is too low.

Roberts is right--the pay is too low. There are too many well-qualified judges that will simply refuse to take the pay cut to be a federal judge. If you're a partner at a major law firm--and a candidate for district court judge, say--you'll probably be making in the ballpark of $500,000 a year. How many of those candidates are going to quit their job making $500,000 for a job that pays $165,000? Even a dean of a good law school would make in the $300,000 range. Do you think many are going to take a 50% pay cut for a new job? How many will take that?

Very few, apparently. Look at a telling line from the article:

"In the 1950s, 65 percent of U.S. District Court judges came from the practicing bar and 35 percent came from the public sector. Today the situation is reversed, Roberts said, with 60 percent from the public sector and less than 40 percent from private practice.

You want better judges? Increase the pay.

[kerryusama04]

I thought I covered this already, but judges can't really invest anywhere. Once they get in, they are pretty much tied to the gubament for their compensation until they leave. As I recall, Roberts left a multi-million dollar job to become Chief Justice. That's gotta leave a mark in the man-hood. Keeping their salaries low (and yes, $200K is low for the job these folks do), will only serve to keep good judges out of the public sector until they feel they have made enough scratch to hold them over for the rest of their lives. I am certain that we have lost out on some pretty good judges because of this.

[Julliardsux]

1st year associates in New York City after bonus make more than a federal district judge.

[Julliardsux]

If you are a partner at a major firm and are a district court judge candidate, you are likely making 1.2 mill - 2.5 mill a year at least.

[Publius Valerius]

Maybe at the Skadden Arps of the world, but most lawyers don't work for super firms.

Even so, however, I think it's more telling about how ridiculously low the pay is for federal judges.

That said, I feel that the quality of federal judges is generally pretty good, but that will not continue if the pay remains the same while law firm pay continues to rise. It seems like doubling the pay for these folks is a pretty good start.

[antisocial]

"The Senate and House just raise their own pay each year. Its the only thing bi-partisan they do. Judges cant do that."

They don't have to, If I remember correctly, everytime congressional salaries are adjusted, judges salaries are also increased.(automatically)

[cinives]

Sandra Day O'Connor invested very heavily - she just recused herself in cases where there'd be a conflict of interest.

[kerryusama04]

So, what do you think the judges should get paid?

[You Dirty Rats]

First, an accountant is by definition an auditor, not that you would know; did you mean book keeper?

All accountants are not auditors. Auditing is a subset of the accounting profession, not the other way around. You know even less about accounting than law, and that's quite a statement.

[TKDietz]

Why is it so important to get judges from the private sector rather than the public sector? The fact is that most of these appointments to private attorneys tend to be political favors. These people appointed are not necessarily well qualified. They and or their firms have helped the politicians in power who then give out these appointments to compensate them for their help. A lot of these guys have absolutely no experience as judges. Some of them weren't even that great as lawyers. These big firms spend an awful lot of money and effort trying to get partners and friends of their firms elected to state judging jobs and appointed to these federal jobs. Why do you think that is? They wouldn't do it if they weren't getting something out of it. There is no great advantage in increasing the percentage of federal judge appointments handed out to the private sector.

Most of the time those appointed from the public sector to be federal judges are highly experienced state judges at the trial or appellate level. Sometimes they are federal prosecutors or on rare occasions federal public defenders. Sometimes they are law professors. I don't know about law professors, but most of these other public servants who get appointed tend to be highly experienced and well qualified for the job, and the federal judge position they get will pay better than their previous job. They're glad to get these appointments.

How much does a Congressman make? Should some Federal District Court trial judge earn more than a Congressman? I know how much federal attorneys make. Why should some lower level federal judge be earning three or four or more times what the full time federal attorneys practicing in front of them make? Our local Federal Magistrate is making $165K a year. He has a pretty darned easy job. Federal magistrates don't even have to do jury trials. He's making a lot better money then he was making as a state trial judge and his new job is a lot easier than his old job. He's tickled to death with it. The federal deputy public defenders and prosecutors practicing in his court tend to be making in the fifties or low sixties. He had come up through the ranks as a prosecutor and public defender and worked his way into a trial judge position for the state, and now he's been appointed Federal Magistrate earning a good $50k a year or so more than he was earning before, even though he's at the bottom rung when it comes to federal judges.

Federal judge positions are highly sought after. There is no shortage of qualified people for these jobs willing to work for the current pay. These jobs pay fairly well already and they carry with them a lot of prestige. These are lifetime appointments, with great benefits both while on the job and when it comes time to retire. There is no good reason at all for us to get in the business of competing with high end private sector attorney salaries.

I don't really know how federal judge compensation packages work, but federal attorney jobs generally pay better in places where the cost of living is higher. They get a cost of living allowance, and in many cases even have their moving expenses paid if they will have to relocate to take a job. I think it's fair to pay more to judges who will live in areas with higher costs of living, and of course all federal judges and government employees in general should get regular cost of living increases in their salaries, but otherwise I think federal judges are paid enough.

Just as an aside, do you know what's been happening with attorneys incomes in the private sector? When you factor in inflation, they've plummeted over the years. I haven't looked at the numbers in the last couple of years, but according to the U.S. Department of Labor attorneys in my area at least were averaging in the seventies a couple of years ago, and that average included the incomes these ambulance chasers who advertise heavily make. Even in my area some of these guys are doing better than a million a year. I used to work in an office with one of those guys. The best paid senior partners in the biggest firms in my area probably aren't doing much better than a couple of hundred thousand, if they are making that much. The saying is that 10% of the lawyers make 90% of the money, and that's probably not far from accurate.

Lawyers don't do as well on average where I live as they do in a lot of areas, but over the years average compensation has dropped for lawyers nationwide. There are just too many lawyers competing for business. Insurance companies and other businesses that keep lawyers on retainer are forever figuring out ways to pay the attorneys that represent them less. Attorneys that advertise heavily have taken a lot of the more profitable business that the average general practice attorney used to get before advertising took off. I'm in a small relatively small "metropolitan area" with less than 175,000 people and we have at least one personal injury firm that's spending over $200k on advertising every year. They make that back in spades, even though they almost never actually try cases and none of the attorneys in that firm are considered by their peers in the legal community to be particularly good trial lawyers. They'll get several new cases a week, mostly car wrecks. Their staff will do most of the work and in the end they'll end up with more money than their clients, often having expended less than one hour of attorney time on each case.

These personal injury mills, bankruptcy mills, Social Security mills, etc., have made it very hard on the average attorney on the street because they tend to take a lot of the profitable business that used to be spread out much more evenly among local attorneys. Twenty years ago you could graduate from law school, pass the bar and hang your shingle out at your small office, and you'd most likely make a good living as a general practice attorney. Times have changed. Now you struggle with incredibly high overhead and clients that don't pay, and unless you are really well known, which of course isn't likely if you are just starting out, you aren't going to get many of the good cases everyone used to get before attorneys started advertising. You can certainly do some of your own advertising, but you will quickly find out that you have to spend a ton of money on advertising before it will bring you enough business to make any difference. I've been there and done that. I know everyone seems to think all lawyers are just cleaning up financially, but that isn't really true. Lawyers tend to try to act like they are making a lot of money, but most of them aren't. Many are just barely scraping by. There are a lot easier ways to make a living these days. Most attorneys would jump at the chance to be a federal judge making better than $160,000 a year with great benefits and a nice retirement.

[Publius Valerius]

Most attorneys would jump at the chance to be a federal judge making better than $160,000 a year with great benefits and a nice retirement.

You make a lot of points and I'll try to address most of them. First, I agree with this statement entirely. However, most attorneys are grossly incompetent and are entirely unqualified to be a Federal judge. I'm certain most would jump at the opportunity, because (a) it would be an increase in pay for "most" attorneys, and (b) it is life tenured.

However, as I've noted before, the well qualified people are almost uniformly much, much higher paid--there is simply more demand for their legal skills.

The fact is that most of these appointments to private attorneys tend to be political favors. These people appointed are not necessarily well qualified.

I'm not sure what you base this on. While there are, no doubt, political appointments for the unqualified (Earl Warren comes to mind), by and large, the Federal bench is much, much better than its state (usually elected) counterpart. A federal judgeship is more prestigious and more rigorous. Plus, the nomination and appointment process provides and opportunity to vet people that lack the necessary qualifications. Again, the best attorneys are generally the best paid. That's just a function of the market. Skadden Arps isn't able to charge $1000 an hour for some of its partners because these people are lousy attorneys. They are very good at what they do.

As far as why judges make more than federal prosecutors or defenders, it is simply because judges need to be better attorneys than these other people. Though I'm aware that federal prosecutors and defenders are usually fine attorneys, many, many people have those skills and could do that job. Judge, however, is a different story. The skill sets are not the same.

Just as an aside, do you know what's been happening with attorneys incomes in the private sector? When you factor in inflation, they've plummeted over the years.

I'd like to see some numbers to back this up. First year associates in large firms in New York are now being paid $150,000 a year. This is double than it was just a few years ago. Though you might be right that attorney wages across the board have dropped, they certainly haven't dropped at large firms, which makes up the pool of potential federal judge candidates.

As I said before: in order to attract well-qualified candidates, the salary needs to be increased. Period. The Chief Justice absolutely has it right.

[TKDietz]

"1st year associates in New York City after bonus make more than a federal district judge."

I doubt many actually do that well even in New York City. I know it's not like that most other places. I'm in a smaller metropolitan area with probably less than 175,000 people. Most jobs for attorneys starting out either pay nothing or pay a very small salary that is really noting more than a "draw." You basically eat what you kill, after the firm gets their big cut. The best paying jobs with guaranteed income are jobs with insurance defense firms. First year associates for insurance defense firms where I live rarely make more than $45k or so, even if they went to an Ivy League school.

In most parts of the country lawyers earn more money than they do in my area, but not just a whole lot more on average. I don't know about starting pay, but according to the Department of Labor the mean income for lawyers in the State of New York is $122,410. It was a little under $80k in my state. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ny.htm#b23-0000 Nationwide, the mean income for lawyers is $110,520. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes231011.htm This includes incomes for the highest paid and the lowest paid attorneys. The few lawyers with really high incomes skew the averages upward.

[CurlyBill]

I'm getting in late on this one. Those judges can certainly practice law/open their own law firm if they want to make more money. I'm not sure how $165,000 per year is somehow peddled off as a crisis as though they are hitting the poverty line. How much is adequate? How about all those soldiers out there putting their lives on the line and fighting for our freedom at a mere fraction of this?

[cinives]

And this is another reason their $$$ pay does not tell the whole story:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1761357/posts?page=1

[TKDietz]

I don't really have time today to do a lot of research, but I'm always hearing complaints about a nationwide drop in attorney incomes when I go to continuing legal education seminars. The ABA has made a big deal out of it, and certainly those of us who practice law are well aware of how hard it has become to make a living as a lawyer these days. Currently, the mean annual wage for attorneys in this country is $110,520, according to the U.S. Dept. of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes231011.htm I'm sure historical numbers are out there, but I don't have time to dig for them right now.

As for first year associates in large firms in New York earning $150,000, I don't know if that is true or not. I do know that is significantly more than most recent graduates from law school earn in this country.

I do not agree with your assessment of most attorneys as being "grossly incompetent." Some are, most aren't. Competency does vary though, but high earnings certainly do not necessarily equate with a high level of competency. There are plenty of piss poor attorneys pulling down high incomes. Pull your phone book out and look at the first few pages of the attorney section in the yellow pages. Unless you are in a tiny city, odds are most of the lawyers with these big two page spreads, or even one page ads, are pulling down big bucks relative to the incomes of most attorneys in your area. Some of these lawyers may be damned good at what they do. But, a lot of these jokers aren't worth a flip as attorneys. They're just good at marketing, and somehow or another they came up with enough money to start advertising in a big way. They talk a good game, get people who come for help to sign on the dotted line, and then they sell their clients down the river, settling their cases for a fraction of what they are worth. You see the same sort of thing at some of the big firms that aren't ambulance chasing firms. Some of the senior partners aren't that great as lawyers. They either happened to throw in with the right people when they started the firms or got in through family connections or because they had money and they hung on until they made partner. I've seen some of these guys just botch the hell out of cases. They may have gone to Ivy League schools and have all the right connections, but when push comes to shove their clients get eaten alive at trial when they are up against halfway decent lawyers who may have made C's at their local state law school. They'd be doing their clients a service if they quit practicing law and took teaching jobs.

As for all the vetting that takes place for federal judge candidates, it's often not that rigorous. For a position on the Supreme Court or a federal appeals court there will usually be a considerable amount of vetting, but this will not be the case with most Federal Magistrate or District Court jobs. These are low level federal judge jobs. Like I said they are often handed out as political favors. There is rarely any big fight over these appointments. I've been practicing law a lot of years and I've seen this whole thing works. We always know who is in line for these federal appointments locally and we know what it takes to get serious consideration for these positions. Politics often play a much bigger part than qualifications. Of course we see that in Supreme Court nominations as well, but with all the vetting we're far less likely to get incompetent boobs in those positions than we are in Magistrate and District Court positions.

I do not see the need to raise federal judges salaries across the board such that they compete with the highest paying private attorney jobs. There are plenty of highly competent attorneys and state judges who would be more than happy to fill these jobs at the current rates of pay. These positions should pay more in areas with much higher than average costs of living. But on the whole federal judges shouldn't be making more money than Congressmen and Senators, especially the lower level federal judges.

Keep in mind that there are a lot of federal judges. If we raise salaries for Supreme Court Justices, the appellate judges in the various circuits will all want raises. If we raise their salaries, the District Court judges and Magistrates will all want raises. If we raise their salaries all the special federal judges will want raises, and then all the federal attorneys will want raises, and on and on and on. These judges are public servants, well paid public servants at that. If they just have to earn more money, they need to move on to the private sector and we'll replace them with people with more of a sense of civic duty. If we try to raise their salaries so they can keep up with the Joneses, there will never be an end to that.

Now if you want to talk about raising salaries for prosecutors and public defenders in my state such that starting pay is better than the mid thirties and experienced attorneys are making better than somewhere in the forties, as is the case now, I'd be all ears. Federal prosecutors and public defenders do better on average than state public defenders, but still incomes are so low that most people in these positions are barely scraping by. Even if federal judges aren't making as much as the top ten percent of private attorneys, they do at least make more than enough to live comfortably, and their decent salaries are complimented with nice benefits and nice retirement packages. I can't feel that sorry for them.