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.

[Marysecretary]

I agree. This is America and we're supposed to be able to earn wealth and spend it. The President doesn't even make the kind of money a CEO earns. And he works a lot harder.

[Publius Valerius]

Yes, it does. A better salary increases the quality of people that are interested in the job.

A job that pays $25,000 a year doesn't attract people with the best skill sets. Likewise, when very qualified people are making $500,000 or more, a job that pays $165,000 is not as attractive...

[katieanna]

Rehnquist complained about judges salaries every year in his annual report.

[The Old Hoosier]

None of that changes the fact that Congressmen and Senators make less, and most of them have to maintain two places of residence, unlike judges.

I can't see how someone with a $185,000 annual income can't make a $3-4k mortgage payment every month. Bear in mind that the vast majority of judges, especially the lower-paid district judges, live outside of Washington and do not face such home prices.

[NinoFan]

The comparisons to the private sector fall short.

Let us consider the benefits of being a federal judge:

1. VERY reasonable hours compared to private sector work.

2. Prestige.

3. Power. There is simply no comparison here. A federal judge has an enormous amount of power. Decisions he or she makes can change culture, ruin businesses, and lead to the execution of human beings.

4. Little chance of getting a pink slip. You can do a sucky job as a judge, but it won't matter unless you commit an impeachable offense.

5. Excellent retirement benefits.



Also, I don't see any strong evidence that getting more judges from the private sector vs. the public sector would guarantee much of anything.

[misterrob]

Here's a budget for you for a family of 4:

Mtg, Int, taxes & Ins--$3,000
Utils, CATV, Tel, etc--$600
Auto--$500
Food--$1,000
Clothing--$1,500
Entertainment--$1,500
Misc House--$500
Misc Stuff--$500
College Savings-$500


That's about $9,500 a month. You can cut the house but likely have to boost the education costs because you cannot send the kids to public school. You can figure that you will pay about $40-45K in taxes so that leaves you about $20K left over to save toward retirement.

Yes, there are perks to the job but if someone can make $250-300K and have a parent at home to be available for the kids then that's a tougher choice to make.

[NinoFan]

"Exactly. Many people here fail to realize that setting the pay for a job like this far below market levels usually limits interest to those who already have plenty of money. If that's what the people criticizing Roberts want, I hope they're happy, but their class envy suggests that it is not."

That's not really how it works.

If you upped the pay to attract the top attorneys who make 600K a year, you'd more than likely just continue to add to the total number of wealthy individuals who become judges.

You're not going to get economic diversity by increasing the pay.

[NinoFan]

The same choices face congressmen every day.

Furthermore, unlike many congressmen, who have two homes, one of which is in an expensive area near DC, most federal judges do NOT have to live anywhere near DC and can, like the rest of the world, shop around for a reasonably priced house.

I have to laugh at the $1500/month figure for entertainment for a family of four. That is way more than is needed by any reasonable person to provide amusement.

[longtermmemmory]

This is directed to federal judges who are alegenly more qualified.

IMAGINE how OVERpaid for the intelect the STATE court judges are.

I think you get what you pay for, so we now have a judiciary overpopulated with DOJ rejects and people have have never worked outside of the public sector.

[misterrob]

Eat out with the wife twice a month in an urban environment and that's $150-200.

Summer camp for kids? Easily $200 a week per kid

Movie with 2 kids is $30

Bowling is $50

Want to go on a family vacation for a week? Try $2,500.

Buy family gifts for holidays, birthdays?

Adopt a family or two at the holidays?


It all adds up.

[misterrob]

Oh, and Congressmen are out their whoring for votes at every turn, raising money, accepting donations and taking trips. Once they leave office they can go to work for law firms, lobbyists or other companies doing government work. They are also beholden to special interests.

[Paperdoll]

Don't tell me that money draws the best people.
If $165,000.00 per annum isn't enough income to serve one's nation, there is something wrong somewhere. That's also why term limits should be mandatory.

[TKDietz]

There are something like 500,000 lawyers in this country. Among them are plenty of highly qualified attorneys who would be honored to take federal judge jobs at the current pay rate.

You are so hung up on what people make. It seems that you think that no one out there who doesn't earn at least $500,000 a year is worthy of a federal judge position. That's just absolute nonsense. I don't even know what makes you think that the most successful attorneys would make the best judges. Much of what lawyers do is different than what judges do. Some of the greatest trial lawyers aren't exactly great legal minds. Some rarely crack a book. There are, believe it or not, a lot of highly successful trial attorneys who are not extremely knowledgeable in the law. The finest legal minds in many cases are not the best trial attorneys. They'll do research and write briefs for the best trial lawyers in many cases, or they'll just handle appellate work where their presence in court is rarely required and when they do show up in court they'll be arguing technical legal arguments rather than the emotional arguments that so often win jury trials. There are different ways to skin the cat so to speak when it comes to trying cases, but a lot of the best trial attorneys are the best because they are charismatic people, consummate salesmen, skilled negotiators, and master manipulators. They may not do much of anything well in life but they know how to go in there and sell a case to a jury, and they tend to be good at wearing their opponents down and resolving cases prior to trial with terms reasonably satisfactory to their clients. In order to be successful this type of attorney tends to develop relationships with people with strong legal minds who will help them with that part of their jobs, and if they are caught off guard at trial they'll bluff their way through as best as possible. The brief writing egghead associate back at the office who helps them through their cases with his legal encyclopedia of a mind would probably actually make a much better appellate judge at least than the power attorney who gets by mostly on his wit and his smile and his power of persuasion. The skill sets are different for trial attorneys and trial judges, and there's even more difference in what trial attorneys do and what appellate judges do.

Being a partner in a major law firm does not necessarily mean that person has a great legal mind, nor does it immediately qualify one to be a federal judge. Private sector attorneys are not instantly better qualified to sit on on the bench in federal court than those in the public sector. In most cases I think I'd much rather see federal trial judge jobs go to state judges who have demonstrated their stellar ability as judges in the years they have held their state positions, and I'd rather see federal appellate level positions go to proven appellate jurists working in state courts. These people in most all cases make less than federal judges. When they land a position with a federal court, they are getting a raise. And these people actually have proven track records as judges, unlike some partner at a major law firm. We're far better off filling these positions with people we know from past experience will do a good job.

This is a frustrating argument. I'm talking to someone who has no idea what he's talking about. You just think you know what you are talking about. You think if people make lots of money as attorneys they must be better qualified to work as federal judges, and that's just wrong. Most judges on the state level or on the federal level could make more money in private practice if they really wanted to do that. It's been that way forever. Judges have never made as much as the most successful attorneys. Would they like to make more? Sure they would. Everyone likes to make more money. But if making more money was so important to them, they'd go out into private practice, and most don't do that. And my guess is that a lot of those who do leave leave for other reasons besides the money. Maybe they've had some close calls with people they've had to deal with at court and they don't want to put their families at risk. Maybe they're just tired of their jobs. Maybe they are tired of the hostile climate developing toward the judiciary these days and they don't feel their jobs are as prestigious as they once were. Very few are in their positions just for the money. They're in there for other reasons. Maybe it's just ego, or maybe for more noble reasons, but it's rarely about the money. All federal judges over the level of a Federal Magistrate make as much as Congressmen and Senators. Supreme Court Justices except for the Chief Justice make as much as majority and minority leaders of both houses of Congress, and the Chief Justice makes as much as the speaker of the house, $212,100.00 a year. These are respectable incomes, up there in the top 10% or so in this country. They also get outstanding benefits, excellent retirement packages, expense accounts, and all sorts of perks to go along with their salaries. And you can't put a price on the prestige they enjoy, even if there is an awful lot of judge bashing going on from some segments of society, much of it ill-informed and unfair.

What pisses me off most about this is that Chief Justice Roberts had the gall to call this a "constitutional crisis." That's just ridiculous. I really feel like that if these public servants are so concerned about money they need to get gone. We can easily replace them with highly qualified jurists, brilliant, honest, decent human beings who have a real sense of civic duty. We absolutely should not get into the business of raising salaries for federal judges to compete with salaries for the most successful private attorneys. There will be no end to that, and dammit, it's just unnecessary. There is no shortage of qualified persons out there who would do outstanding work as federal jurists. They'd consider it a great honor and privilege and would do it for the current pay, which by the way is excellent pay for public servants.

[Young Scholar]

You'd wouldn't change income diversity, but you'd attract people with relatively low levels of wealth but high income, who otherwise wouldn't want to take the pay cut.

[mathurine]

I don't know how they are compensated, or whether they need to be, but IMHO no lawyer or judge should be allowed on the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't require it, and common sense would suggest that the final authority on the activity of the lawyerly fraternity, ought, in a democracy, be wielded by actual humans who live and work in the society, instead of those who hang around it and have been successful doing nothing more productive than leaching off of it.

[Theodore R.]

If GWB were to nominate a non-lawyer to the Supreme Court, his popularity would go below 10 percent. The American people THINK that only lawyers can sit on the Supreme Court, and while they are wrong again as usual, they seem to relish in their collective ignorance.

[GregoryFul]

The public does not have to make the same mistake! We should pay the soldiers adequately!

[GregoryFul]

just did a search and it said it cost the Government 12 billion dollars to invent GPS.

Perhaps not just to invent, but to bring GPS into reality.