Give Judges a Big Raise

Saturday, June 30, 2007 | 0

By Larry Rogak

How's this for a fact to ponder: In New York, lawyers who have just passed the bar exam and been admitted to the bar can make more money as a starting salary at their first job, than the most senior judge can earn.

Huh?

In New York, there are at least 98 law firms that start newly-minted lawyers at a salary of $160,000 a year, not including bonuses. That's right. Brand new lawyers, who don't even know where the courthouses are. Brand new lawyers who have never advised a client, never argued a motion (let alone drafted one), never tried a case, and who basically have nothing but book knowledge without one second of practical experience, can start with a salary of $160,000 a year plus bonus, at at least 98 New York law firms.

How much do the judges with the most seniority make in New York? The judges with the most experience, the most wisdom, the judges who will listen to the very first arguments made by these newly-minted attorneys? Take a wild guess.

It's $136,700. That's the maximum. Many earn less.

But it gets worse.

There hasn't been an increase in New York judges' pay since 1999. Meanwhile, salaries for the wet-behind-the- ears new lawyers at the "prestige" law firms go up every year. (Why that is, I don't know. Are brand-new lawyers really worth more every year? Or is paying the "going rate" simply a requirement to retain one's standing in that exclusive club of "top New York law firms"?)

Why, you might ask, should I care how much judges earn? Am I trying to kiss up to judges by taking up their cause? Nah. That would be such obvious brown-nosing that I would have to be a lot dumber than I am to go that route. Besides, I don't brown-nose anybody. If anything, I tend more towards insulting and alienating.

The number 1 reason I support the increase in judges' salaries is that it takes competitive salaries to attract talent. That's true not just for judges, but for any line of work. Why would any talented lawyer choose to bring those talents to a position as a judge if he or she would have to take a huge pay cut to do so?

Judges never did earn as much as "top" lawyers, but for cryin' out loud, they should earn more than lawyers who never practiced law before, shouldn't they?

That's just the inequity part of it. The dangerous part of this situation is that the quality of our judiciary must, inevitably, suffer, if the pay is so low that nobody with any real abilities would want to take the job, and if the low pay drives our existing judges off the bench and into private-sector jobs where they can earn a decent living.

For those of you living outside New York City, let me tell you: earning $136,700 a year doesn't make you rich here. Not with the average house costing $750,000 in the outer boroughs and the average family-size condo apartment in Manhattan selling for close to $1 million. The other day I walked past a new apartment building under construction in downtown Brooklyn, across the street from a huge parking garage and a block away from a jail, where new 3-bedroom apartments are advertised for $945,000.

For $136,700 a year, you can live a modest middle-class existence in New York City. That's it. Now, there's nothing wrong with living modestly. There are a lot of people who should try it for a change. But when people who earn a modest salary have to go 8 years without a pay raise, their existence becomes more modest every year. So instead of seeing their lives get a little better every year, they see the cupboard get barer. They can't even maintain the same economic standard; inflation eats away at their existence. Housing costs in New York have doubled since the judges' last pay raise.

New York, which is pretty much the center, or at least a leader, in America's judicial and economic life, cannot afford to have the quality of its judicial decisions slip just because the pay is not enough to attract and keep judges who are good enough to maintain the high standards that have always been the hallmark of New York jurisprudence. It is inevitable that if the quality of legal decisions goes down in New York, business will simply move elsewhere.

In addition to all this, I think, frankly, that paying judges less than brand new lawyers makes New York look stupid to the rest of the world. It's a circumstance that only an idiot would allow to exist, because it looks so dumb.

So who's responsible for this mess? For that, you have to ask, who is in charge of raising judges' salaries? The answer: the New York Legislature. But they refuse to raise the salaries for judges unless they are allowed to raise their own salaries. And Governor Spitzer won't allow the legislators to raise their own salaries unless they enact campaign finance reform.

Obviously, the legislators care more for hanging onto their old-school ways of raising money for their campaigns than they do for raising their own salaries. But that's a story in and of itself.

The quality of New York's judiciary must not be allowed to corrode; just as the quality of New York tangible infrastructure of bridges, highways and mass transit cannot be allowed to corrode. In both instances, the result would be a serious reduction in New York's economic vitality and quality of life.

Give judges a raise. A BIG raise. Now.

Lawrence N. Rogak is an insurance defense attorney in New York. He writes The Rogak Report, a daily insurance law newsletter, and his insurance law articles appear in several industry publications. For more information see www.Rogak.com.

-------------------------------

The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of workcompcentral.com, its editors or management.