I actually think this will cause a mass retirement or at least a mass exodus to senior status. Probably a lot of judges have been hanging around in hopes of a big raise. They definitely deserve something though - Congress hasn't increased their pay in a long time.

I'd love to know where the WP is getting evidence to support its assertion that the "relatively lower pay doesn't appear to be hurting the quality of the federal judgeship applicant pool."

Just because the prestige and influence of a federal judgeship are enough to attract exceptionally well-qualified applicants does not mean they should then be rewarded by being paid less than a first year associate.

Why can't federal judges have their cake and eat it too - the prestige and a living wage? $165K does not go very far in the SDNY when you have to pay for your kids' college tuition.

So I suppose the WaPost would support a pay CUT for federal judges, since the person willing to forego $1M for a prestigious federal judgship paying $165k would probably also do so for $130k, or $100k.

Ridiculous. First, the increase would be very significant especially for judges in high COL areas like New York who currently don't get locality pay. Second, if the WaPost doesn't think an increase to $246k will make a difference, then instead of trashing the raise altogether, then perhaps it should support an even higher raise that would draw talent out of the private sector. While there is no "mass exodus" of current judges leaving, most aren't going to decide that the pay is suddenly a dealbreaker after already making the decision to take the post; the real benefit to higher federal judge pay is attracting the talent that never would consider the judiciary (or public sector) in the first place due to the pay.

it must be nice to
1) not have to worry about a pay cut. Ever.
2) not have to worry about being fired. Ever.
3) not have to worry about saving for retirement. Ever.

good point 11:45... if federal judges don't get a raise, the bench will be full of government attorneys, prosecutors and law professors. Not a good thing.

Clearly, WaPo hasn't been before a federal judge recently.

Judges get their full salary after they retire. If this raise happesn then the retirment perk of judges should be re-examined. I also think that judges should get regular cola adjustments and cost of living adjustments. There is no reason why a judge sitting in NYC should be paid the same as a judge sitting in Bismark. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"We suspect the answer is 'whatever an Associate Justice makes'" - brilliant.

please make sure you are on every time Lat goes away. Heads and shoulders above Merck.

Raise them as much as you can, just take it out of the (non-career) clerks' salaries.

Thanks to the massive firm bonus opportunities out there, they are in the best position for a haircut.

11:50,

And in exchange for those things you mention, which are surely economically valuable, many (but by no means all) of judges take between a $500K and a $1M pay cut annually. I understand that it's public service, and so there should be a discount, but let's not pretend the difference in many cases is not substantial. At a minimum, the issue is not nearly so one sided as you make it seem.

Anyone get the feeling that there are a couple of federal judges commenting on this thread?

Ummm, no?

11:51,

Not sure if your response was intended as sarcasm or not (I can't tell), but assuming it's not, I do think it's a bad thing to have a salary level that drastically reduces the applicant pool from the private sector (or, more precisely, a salary level that is preclusive to many in the upper echelons in the private bar). IMO, an ideal applicant pool would certainly include private sector attorneys in addition to the groups you mentioned.

After the opinions that came out at the end of this Supreme Court, the raise should be given to District and Circuit Judges but not the Supremes

I am against the pay raise. Dist, CTAs, and Supreme Ct justices are all too often political cronies. They have life time appointments and there is virtually no merit system involved. I will not support paying them more. I

11:48- Are you a Fed Judge in SDNY? Get a grip.

this is bs!

11:54 - you're putting words into my mouth. I was merely noting that the salary issue is not as simple as just saying "first years make 160K" and "judges make 165K."

And not every federal judge is coming from a partnership at a top-10 Vault firm either.

You don't have to be anywhere a V10 firm to have PPP of the sort 11:54 listed. Lots of firms in middle america have average PPP ~ 700K-800K (and the more senior partners likely being considered for the bench would be above those averages in many cases).

I can't believe I'm the first to say this...

NYC to $247k!

While this increase is something, it still doesn't make-up for the huge gap in pay compared to law firm partners/law school deans that has emerged over the decades. Going from partner or dean to "your honor" shouldn't mean an 80% (or more!) paycut, and a couple decades ago it wasn't. Really, these judges should be making more like 500k+. I also agree that there should be locality pay on top of whatever their base salary is-it's ridiculous that SF, NYC, Chicago, etc. judges get paid the same as Atlanta and the like.

This is nuts. You guys do realize WE'RE going to pay for this, right?

I say fuck that. I'll take the pay cut and go be a judge. Please, make me a federal judge. I will do it HAPPILY at their current salary.

Being a federal judge is POWER. It's worth WAY more than the difference between first year and partner. Plus, they get LOTS of vacation, reasonable hours, NEVER have to work late nights or weekends, and get to pat themselves on the back as they enjoy a casual, relaxing drive home, that they're doing something that adds to the overall good in the world.

Big firms pay more because they have to. I wouldn't be busting my ass to make rich bastards richer while pissing on the little guy unless I was getting paid GOBS of money to do it. Big firm lawyers get paid so much because it's BLOOD MONEY. We NEED a guilt premium. Federal judges don't need that.

You people who think federal judges need or deserve a raise are all fucking fooling yourselves.

Ridiculous that first-year associates make over 160k plus a 50/70k clerkship bonus and that federal judges make 165k.

the economist disagrees with wapo.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9413718

It's actually the "upper-middle class" of private practice lawyers the current pay scale hurts. Partners pulling in $1 million a year or attorneys who are otherwise very wealthy can afford the pay cut. Likewise, government lawyers who are already used to a salary lower than a federal judge can "afford" the judicial salary since it would actually be a pay increase. The people who are likely to have the most difficult time with the judicial salary are private practice attorneys making between $250,000 and $600,000, i.e., enough to be well-off, but not enough to effortlessly continue to live an identical lifestyle as a judge, especially with kids in college. I should also note that this is an even bigger issue in state courts, where judicial salaries are often in the low $100,000s. Because of this, state benches are often dominated by former prosecutors, which is fine to a point, but it doesn't make for a terribly diverse pool of experience on any given court.

I can be on board with a locality raise, but an overall raise of this magnitude is uncalled for. Judges have much better lives than big firm lawyers. If they wanted to make the switch, they could easily do so.

This is bureaucratic pandering at its worst. How much more of my HARD-earned salary is now going to go to pay judges' much-more-easily-earned salaries?

NO PAY RAISES FOR ARTICLE III JUDGES!!

Life tenure, secure retirement, and the respect and admiration of peers in the legal community is PLENTY OF COMPENSATION.

TAX MONEY should be spent on MEANINGFUL AND USEFUL projects, such as NATIONAL HEALTH CARE-- not to keep judges driving Aston Martins.

FUCK!

12:42, A-fucking-men.

PUBLIC SECTORS EMPLOYEES DO NOT DESERVE PAY EQUAL TO PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES IN COMPARABLE PROFESSIONS.

ANY FEDERAL JUDGE CAN WALK AWAY FROM THE BENCH TODAY AND DOUBLE HIS OR HER SALARY IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. FEW DO SO BECAUSE NEARLY ALL AGREE THAT THEY HAVE IT MADE IN THEIR CURRENT JOBS.

IF THEY WANT MORE MONEY, LET THEM LEAVE THE BENCH.

END OF STORY.

you cannot has pay raizes!

name one judge that drives an aston martin.

People complaining that "we have to pay for the pay raise" need to examine the federal budget.

The ENTIRE judicial branch accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget. So much for co-equal.

Carry on...

It's a metaphor, stupid.

Try opening your eyes and not living in such zombie-like dedication to literalism.

I cannot, right now, name a judge who drives an Aston Martin, but there are plenty of very wealthy judges who own many of the accoutrements of great wealth-- including fancy cars.

For a judge who is not independently wealthy, an annual income of almost $300k is plenty of cheddar to fund the purchase of an Aston Martin or a comparable high-end, luxury automobile.

============

MSRP Range: $169,750 - $183,250

The 2007 DB9 is a 2-door, 4-passenger luxury sports car, or convertible sports car, available in two trims, the Coupe and the Volante. Upon introduction, the Coupe is equipped with a standard 6.0-liter, V12, 450-horsepower engine that achieves 12-mpg in the city and 19-mpg on the highway.

The Volante is equipped with a standard 6.0-liter, V12, 450-horsepower engine that achieves 13-mpg in the city and 18-mpg on the highway. A 6-speed automatic transmission with overdrive is standard on both trims, and a 6-speed manual transmission with overdrive is optional. The 2007 DB9 is a carryover from 2006.

The cheapest AM, the Vantage V8 is $117,000.

Assuming you put down $20K, the monthly payments over 5 years would be in the neighborhood of $1200 (assuming AM will let you finance over that period).

It would be tight, but doable.

The irony is that it would cost you almost as much to get a parking spot for it in NYC.

300K per year equals about 25K PER MONTH (before taxes).

Even if the payments were $2000 per (which, based on my calculations, seems like a closer figure).

300K per year equals about 25K PER MONTH (before taxes).

Even if the payments were $2000 per (which, based on my calculations, seems like a closer figure), the Vantage would be easily within reach of an Article III judge.

2:04--

(1) before taxes
(2) what about mortgages, family, college for kids, food, etc.
(3) 300k is the proposed salary for the eight associate justices of the supreme court. 263k and 248k are the more relevant numbers.

1:52,

As 1:45 correctly points out, the percentage of the federal budget allocated for the judiciary overall (of which judicial salaries are only a small fraction) is miniscule. So your argument implying that there is an either-or choice to any significant degree between important priorities like national health care and purportedly "unimportant" ones like judicial compensation is wrong.

But hey, that didn't stop you from generalizing about the average wealth of the entire federal judiciary based on that miniscule fraction of judges who are independently wealthy and for whom the pay raise would be unimportant.

2:10, you're just quibbling now.

With income from 248k-318k, one can afford nearly anything one desires.

Federal judges are not entitled to have opulent estates, fancy cars, or education for their children funded by tax payers (many of whom cannot afford any of the aforementioned items).

The point of my objection to a pay raise is that there is an inherent difference between public service legal jobs -- in which the "market" for salaries is set by what level of pay is palatable to those paying (the public) -- and private sector legal jobs, in which the "market" for salaries is set by what private clients are willing to pay.

The two areas are apples and oranges when considering pay ranges and salaries in one cannot be linked to salries in the other.

Sorry.

But hey, that didn't stop you from generalizing about the average wealth of the entire federal judiciary based on that miniscule fraction of judges who are independently wealthy and for whom the pay raise would be unimportant.

=========

And I guess you have reviewed the public income disclosures of all federal judges to determine that the percentage of wealthy judges is "miniscule?"

Thanks.

I don't understand why are you little rats are so eager to defend a proposal that would endow enormous salaries upon life-long public servants who simply don't merit such pay?

It is astonishing.

12:42:

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE??? Do you know what that is going to take out of your paycheck every two weeks so that we can send our country further down the road to socialism? You are insane. I'll take a measley pay raise for measley several hundred fed judges out there over that anyday.

2:22,

I agree (and think everyone does) with your point that judges should not be paid at the same level as their private sector counterparts. The question is what the magnitude of the discount should be (not saying you were arguing to the contrary). IMO, the salary ranges for judges should be readjusted to keep pace (at some discounted level) with the private sector, or perhaps with public sector counterparts like law deans or professors. The magnitude of the pay increases wouldn't seem so stark if judges got a pay raise more than once every 20 years (excluding COLA).

12:42,

I put as much research into that as you did your Aston Martin assertion.

2:28,

I wholeheartedly support broad-based wealth redistribution programs like a national health care plan, or free college educations over narrow patronage-based enrichment of the established elite.

There is nothing more distasteful than using national wealth to support already (relatively) wealthy friends and neighbors of the power-elite.

This is particularly disgusting in light of the fact that Roberts chose to take the UNPRECEDENTED step of focusing his entire annual report on this ONE issue. I love that newly-minted John-Boy really tackles the hard-hitting issues that the citizenry REALLY cares about, like whether federal judges can afford one sports car or two. I'm sure that the same-sex couple desperately trying to make their lives together work, the hard-working 20-year resident alien living in fear of illegal deportation, the 17-year-old raped-and-pregnant girl in a state with unconstitutional parental notification laws, and the homeless veteran whose landlord illegal evicted him, are happy to know that Chief Justice John Roberts knows what's REALLY important for the judiciary to focus on. He knows what REALLY matters in America today. Thank goodness for public servants like John Roberts!!!

I can't believe my own damn senator, instead of reprimanding Roberts for his selfish and narrow-minded report, is REWARDING HIM for his spoiled behavior. Man, how bad is this country fucked up?

DEATH TO AMERICA!

Here's my 7 step plan to financial independence:

1. Get hired as an associate at AM Law top 20 firm.
2. Invest max contributions in IRA and 401K at AM Law top 20 firm.
3. Make Partner at AM Law top 20 firm.
4. Stay in partnership at AM Law top 20 firm for 15 years, all the while making the right political contributions. 5. Get plucked for federal COA position.
6. Work as COA judge for 2 years
7. retire at age 55 with millions already in the bank, and a pension of $262,700 per year.

First, what does same-sex marriage have to do with this at all? Second, an illegal alien has no legal right to be here, and thus if he's living in fear of deportation I (along with all other real Americans) do not care. Third, parental notification laws are not unconstitutional, unless you are employing the liberal "penumbras and emanations" philosophy. Forth, do you know how small a percentage of abortions are performed on pregnancies that resulted from rape? Your tired old leftist rhetoric might make for good sound bites, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

8. Die at age 56 from working too damn hard.

There should be a COLA living adjustment for federal judges. That a judge in Manhattan makes the same as a judge in Montana is insane. The judge in Manhattan will require a working spouse if she ever hopes to buy an apartment there; the judge in Montana has it made.

And this raise is long overdue. Members of Congress are millionaires and can afford to not raise their own pay; federal judges rarely are (and their pay shouldn't be linked to the self-serving "look, we're denying ourselves a pay increase" votes of Congress!).

3:25, are you being intentionally obtuse?

My precise POINT was that Roberts DID NOT address actual issues that actually matter to actual American citizens and residents. He spent his ENTIRE REPORT on something completely unrelated to and out of touch with the actual problems in the country. So, yeah, it does have nothing to do with any of this. Which is precisely what's wrong with this and with Roberts' pathetic little report that led to this.

And take a reading comprehension class. I never said anything about an illegal alien being deported, I mentioned an alien being illegally deported. If you know how to read at all, these are obviously two different things. Unless your tiny, clouded lemming mind is unable to comprehend the possibility that your beloved Georgie Bush's administration could EVER do anything ILLEGAL.

4:11, I thought by illegally deported you were claiming that deporting illegals is somehow a violation of some hippie liberal european human rights convention or something. Pardon me. In any event, the ACTUAL ISSUES that you mentioned are not things that should be within the scope of the judiciary, and therefore Roberts was justified in not mentioning them.

DEATH TO AMERICA!

not things that should be within the scope of the judiciary

You honestly don't think same-sex marriage, the violation of constitutional rights of foreign residents, the (we'll say "arguable") violation of the constitutional rights of minors, or the violation of legal rights of veterans, should have anything to do with judiciary? I get that you're not a pissed off hippie liberal, but are you even a LAWYER?

Pray tell, then, what SHOULD the judiciary do, besides pay judges gobs of money to, apparently, NOT decide pressing issues of the day?

Howrey’s First-Year Texas Associates Earn $160,000
By Anne K. McMillan

Texas Lawyer

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Washington, D.C.-based Howrey has bumped its starting salaries for first-year associates up to $160,000, effective July 1, Houston managing partner Steve Cagle says. The 635-lawyer firm also is ramping up work on a new merit-based compensation plan that will replace the old lockstep system of providing raises.

“I really love the fact that people are going to be able to make the choice of their own career path,” Cagle says. He notes that the merit-based plan will provide associates with choices they’ve indicated they want — accommodating those who want to bill 2,400 hours per year and make partner as quickly as possible as well as those who want to bill 1,900 hours per year and have a life outside the firm.

In addition, Cagle says, the merit-based system will “place a lot of pressure on the partners in the firm. . . . [It] represents a significant commitment on the part of partnership to get more involved in associate development.”

Focus groups, including several to be held in the 60-lawyer Houston office, outside consultants and the firm’s powers that be are working out factors for the merit-based system, which likely will include criteria such as productivity, quality and entrepreneurship.

Cagle expects the system to be in place by the first of the year.

Judge Judy makes $25,000,000 per year. Now that is ridiculous.

11:43 - Bullshit.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WaterCooler/story?id=124545&page=1

Judith Sheindlin, a former judge who now hosts the cable TV series Judge Judy, earned a salary of $25 million last year. By contrast, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, presiding over the nation's highest court, brought in less than $200,000.

Hello

Bottom line: they are judges by choice

You can decline an appointment or not submit an application to a lower federal court.

They knew what their salary would be before they took their 9 to 5 judgeship positions. However, I am all for COLA adjustments.

My opinion, of course, would be different if I was a judge.

It probably makes sense to give the judges a raise--and I do think that a bump from $165 to $250 a year might make a difference, especially for judges with children contemplating college. But it may also make sense to make some of the raise a cost-of-living adjustment based on geaography, so that, for example, a district court judge in NYC makes $300,000, and one in Omaha makes $200,000 per year. Afterall, lawyers in NYC make far more than lawyers in Omaha, and the idea behind the raise seems to be that judges are fleeing the bench en masse to earn more

Of course they should get a pay rise, there hasn't been one in years. Sheesh. 165k in NYC is peanuts.

"Likewise, government lawyers who are already used to a salary lower than a federal judge can "afford" the judicial salary since it would actually be a pay increase. The people who are likely to have the most difficult time with the judicial salary are private practice attorneys making between $250,000 and $600,000, i.e., enough to be well-off, but not enough to effortlessly continue to live an identical lifestyle as a judge, especially with kids in college."

Why on earth would somebody expect an "identical lifestyle" salary-wise when they enter public service?

Having not taken Con. law in years, I seem to recall something about not making prospective statements about issues that will likely come to the court. Go ahead and yell at the Chief judge for not violating the constitution to talk about your hippy liberal garbage issues.

Go ahead and complain about deporting illegals. You hippies have no clue what is going on in this world. Your selfish egocentrism has already killed over 40 million people since Roe v. Wade. And that is PEOPLE, not 3/5's of a person like your forefathers said, or animals like the eugenicists used to say, or, like your idolized Margaret Higgins Sanger, founder of planned parent hood, called the "aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets." It's wonderful when you people idolize people who have said things such as "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." Her clinics were invented to kill off the African American Race. But you people idolize the free services at Planned Parenthood. For thousands of years mankind has justified the slaughter of their neighbors by calling them inhuman, beasts, subhuman, not people, undeserving of life, or some other form of reducing a human being to an animal or object. The same has been done for Abortion. Even the terminology betrays its evil purpose. Should we start calling murders abortions, the ending of lives.

But no. Please complain about how your garbage social policy isn't being talked about by the Chief Justice in violation of the Constitution, PLEASE.

Just wondering why the "pay for college" position is so strong? I'm assuming people are referring to parents picking up the tab on $50k/year Ivies. Wouldn't seem to be such a big deal if parents instead were willing to pay for a good state school.

What many of the posters fail to realize is that judicial pensions are governed by the "Rule of 80," meaning that the combination of age and years of service must equal 80 before retirement -- and benefits -- are available. It is all or nothing. So, for example, a 50-year old has to serve 15 years, until age 65, to retire with benefits. If he retires earlier, he doesn't get a dime.