Justice Isn't Free: Judges Agitate for Raises

State judges want a raise in salaries after years of paycheck stagnation. They got close during last year's budget negotiations as the former Governor Spitzer lobbied on their behalf, but the proposal was dropped in closed-door negotiations. The primary stumbling block: state legislators are tying any raise in judges' salaries to a pay raise for themselves.

Once again this year, the judges were stonewalled on a pay increase and the state's top Honor, Judge Judith Kaye, is bringing the dispute out of the legislature and into her home court, so to speak: She is suing the state for judicial pay raises.

The case will be heard by a fellow state judge, who stands to receive the very raise that Judge Kaye is arguing for. Her argument is that the current low pay of state judges ($139,600 annual salary) threatens the independence of the state judiciary and deters the attraction of well-qualified candidates to the bench.

The $139,000 salary sounds like, and is, a good deal of money; but among the legal field it's chump change. As The New York Sun points out, a 24-year-old law school grad recruited to a top firm can pull in $160,000 a year. In the past, state judges have gone as far as suggesting that they should boycott any case before them that involves a state legislator.

(Photo of Judge Kaye, by Mike Groll/AP)

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Dave Hogarty in News on April 11, 2008 1:30 PM

Comments [rss]

TKaisen

I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say judges work a 40 hour week... which I don't think they do.

Anyway... 40 hour week * 52 weeks = 2080 hours.

$139,600 yr / 2080 hours = $67.11 per hour.

Plus state benefits and retirement plan. If you want to make more money, be a lawyer.

thefacts

#6:

You get what you pay for.

kissel

no, they actually don't. they make a fine salary. we need to be reducing state budgets not giving out fistfuls of dollars.

eyekantspel

Probably a very large majority of the graduating classes of NYU, Columbia and Cornell are making those salaries, the top 30% of Fordham, and the top 10-15% of other area law schools. And those are starting salaries. After bonus- $190k.

Judges, on the other hand, have generally been practicing for 10 years or more.

Should they make a million dollars a year? No.

But they deserve to be paid in the top 10 of the 50 states, not #49. And 10 years without a raise is far too long.

JRod5417

The judges should only get a raise if the law clerks get bumped up too. The law clerks do all the thinking, research and drafting for the judge. Also, the first years making $160,000 represent a small percentage of law graduates many of whom take jobs that pay peanuts.

eyekantspel

Partners at a big firm (generally 10+ years experience) can make a million dollars a year depending on the firm. Meanwhile, the judges who are deciding the case make less than a 1st year attorney. And that 160k a year the described 1st year is making does not include bonus.

Certainly there is a disconnect between private and public sector salaries, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But our judges are ranked 49th in pay out of the 50 states.

49th.

They haven't gotten a raise in 10 years.

Their pay is tied to pay in the legislature, but the difference is that people in the legislature can have a day job to supplement their pay.

Our judges deserve a raise.

TKaisen

The $139,000 salary sounds like, and is, a good deal of money; but among the legal field it's chump change. As The New York Sun points out, a 24-year-old law school grad recruited to a top firm can pull in $160,000 a year

One is funded by tax-payers, includes working 9-5, having all holidays off, is nearly impossible to get fired from, and has the best benefits and pension plan in the known universe. The other is funded by a private company, requires 80-100 hour weeks, is at-will employment, and you're on your own for retirement.

Is it really that hard to figure out?

JenChungsBaby

How on earth could a state judge preside over this case? Isn't that a blatant conflict of interest? Wouldn't every judge have to recuse himself from this one?