I worked in NY Supreme, the judges are all overpaid. They sit on their asses and stall the legal process.

If Judges want Biglaw money they can go back to Biglaw with the pressure, stress, and long hours. You can't have your cake and eat it as well.

I believe it is a NY state constitutional issue. I read Judge Kaye's complaint a while back, and that's my recollection.

Also, I think the first line should say New York State judges, not NYC. Correct?

NY Judges to $190K. Seriously.

I understand it's expensive to live in NYC. I also understand that judges should be well paid, generally. But, six figures is well paid and it's really up to voters/legislators (and not judges themselves) to determine what salaries should be. Also, if the argument is attracting top legal talent into the judiciary, I doubt any prestigious partner wants to be a judge on the NY Supreme Court, and if they do, there's no way New York can match a biglaw partner salary/draw.

9:39 - Yeah, it's on behalf of all NYS judges not just NYC.

And the constitutional question, IIRC, is being framed thus: the NYS constitution requires separation of powers and tying judicial pay to legislators' pay (which Chief Judge Kaye claims is why past efforts to raise judicial pay failed) is unconstitutional because it basically commingles the operations of 2 separate branches of government.

The complaint is here:
http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/compensation_suit.shtml

9:44 presents an excellent argument why NY Judges should make less than first year associates.

Not.

A judge's compensation comes not just in the form of a measley $137k, but also in considerable personal power and the opportunity to serve the people. That's why they do it, right? If they would prefer to draft board resolutions for $170k a year, I'm sure that many of them could make the switch.

How f*ing crass. Yes, judges are underpaid but this is clearly an issue in which the judiciary as an institution has a conflict of interest and should therefore be treated as a non-justiciable political question. The New York state court system is undermining its credibility big time with this BS.

@10:16: Maybe, but daddy gotta get paid.

Having casually perused some of the Justices' (that's what they are called here), biographies, it is my learned conclusion that these TTT jokers are not remotely qualified to work in big law shops and are in all likelihood overpaid.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Justices.html

These are elected offices. If you don't like the perks of office, nobody is forcing you to run in the election.

No.

The Constitutional question is that judges' salaries are not to be diminished during their time in office. Failure to apply a cost-of-living/inflation raise is a backhanded way of diminishing their real compensation.

At least, that's the argument I heard advanced by Judith S. Kaye a while ago. If that failed and they're trying a new approach, it's news to me.

How can it be appropriate for a judge to order a legislature to increase the salary of a judge (or any state employee for that matter)? That is quintessentially a legislative decision.

Admittedly, I don't see why judges' salaries should be tied to legislators', but that is a policy dispute, not a constitutional issue warranting a mandatory injunction.

I find it fascinating (and repulsive) that a group of people who are incredibly focussed upon increasing their own compensation, for no reason other than the passage of time (ie. time has passed, so NY should go to $190 from $165), are so willing to deny it to judges, who have not had a raise FOR TEN YEARS.

10:55, I find it not at all interesting that a person (you), apparently rejected from a particular group (big law), thereafter professes to find said group repulsive.

11:03- most people commenting wouldn't care that these judges get raises at all. The issue is who should be deciding what raise to give and when--the legislature or the judges themselves. Interestingly, federal judges who are generally highly qualified have had similar issues broached in the federal system and have not ruled to give themselves raises. Those claims were raised in the same vein as this challenge--time value of money means salaries are diminished.

11:12 here...I meant to reference 10:55's post, not 11:03.

934 and 944 -

The argument isn't that the justices want to be paid as much as a BigLaw partner (PPP is what, $375k minimum?). They are not asking the legislature to increase their collective salaries to that level. They are only asking for an increase to offset the cost of living increases over the last 10 years.

939 and 945 -

Actually, technically, the suit that Justice Lehner ruled in is on behalf of 4 justices. It is not a class action brought on behalf of the entire pool of sitting Supreme Court justices. It is , however, commonly understood that any increase for these 4 judges would also be applied to the rest of the pack.

There is also a second suit by a group of (I believe) 3 justices brought upstate. And a third suit brought by the Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, which I believe is on behalf of all justices.

1016 -

If the NY Supreme Court isn't supposed to rule on this issue, then who can? This is an issue solely within the State of New York. There is no basis for jurisdiction in any other state and no federal question or other basis to put this matter before the U.S. courts. Why should the justices be denied redress in court simply because they are justices? If you work at a TTT firm and thought you had a basis to sue because you didn't get a raise for 10 years, you could (you'd lose, but you could bring the suit). Why should it be any different from the justices? Just because they are elected (if you call the NY system an actual election)?

What a load of crap! I've appeared many times in NY Supreme Court. I've seen good justices and bad justices. Regardless, I have no doubt that the raise is long overdue and that those morons in the Legislature should man up and give them a fair increase.

(I also want to point out that many legislators are also attorneys who, despite being elected to "low-paying" positions can keep their own practice on the side. Justices don't have that luxury.)

11:23- the problem with your argument is that you assume there *must* be redress in the courts. There are numerous questions and issues that are important and should be resolved, but are nonetheless non-justiciable. This is one of them. The judges have every right to complain about their salaries (judges all around the country do so, including federal judges), but they should take that issue to the New York legislature. Likely, they should get some kind of raise, but it must be handled by the correct body; maybe this is just a publicity stunt, but it's one that will go awry with the public. Perception in a political fight matters more than reality usually.

11:23, largely agreed, but even very junior partners don't make less than $500k.

"If the NY Supreme Court isn't supposed to rule on this issue, then who can?"

Nobody. That's what the phrase "non-justiciable political question" means. Every single member of the state judiciary has an irreconcilable conflict of interest here and is therefore ethically bound to recuse him/herself. Compensation of judges is and should remain a matter to be left to the legislature, not to be mandated by self-interested judges.

--10:16

1127 -

The justices have brought their salary complaints to the legislature. They have done so for at least the last 5 years. Each year the legislators tie raises to the justices (which they have admitted are due) to other, unrelated, matters (i.e., raises to legislators, etc.). So they legislature, which is the only body to whom they can go to, has ignored their pleas. Judge Kaye repeatedly, and in the full view of the public, pleaded with the legislature to reconsider. She forestalled suit for at least the last year to try and work out a solution. (The suit before Lehner was not brought by Kaye and is not supported by Kaye). Indeed, Kaye has made it clear that any justice taking matters into his or her own hands would be severely dealt with. The integrity of the judicial system has been addressed and preserved by Kaye and her conduct.

So what makes this inherently non-justiciable? There is well-developed body of law permitting a Court to compel a state actor to act. It's called a mandamus proceeding. While this action may not be brought under the mandamus provisions of the CPLR, it is certainly within the Court's authority to instruct the legislature to act in a certain way. Isn't that essentially what ever decision striking down a statute because it is unconstitutional does? The Courts have, in the past, even forced the Legislature to spend money a certain way. See the Campaign for Equity (a suit over funding of public schools http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_08630.htm

So again -- tell me how this is non-justiciable?

11:50- sometimes people lose in the political process, but that doesn't transform a non-justiciable political question into a justiciable one. I understand full well what a mandamus proceeding is, having worked on several involving state legislators during government service. However, they can only be brought in certain circumstances, which you seem to agree doesn't apply here. In any event, this appears to be non-justiciable for the reasons I and 10:16 have outlined.

I don't disagree the judiciary has, up until this point, acted properly or even deserves some action. I just disagree this is a proper method or tactic, legally speaking.

1016/1144 -

I reject the contention that the conflict of interest disqualifies every judge and that, thus, it is a non-justiciable political question.

Not to minimize a huge body of law, but as I understand it, the non-justiciable political question doctrine really prevents the Court from making sweeping political changes. For example, the Court could not replace an existing government with a new one. See Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1 (1849). How is this a sweeping political change? This is about money and it is really only of interest to the members of the judiciary.

As to the conflict, a sitting justice is required to set aside his or her own personal interests all the time. A pro-life judge may be called upon to rule on an issue evaluating Roe v. Wade. The judge's personal interest to shift precedent, generally, has fallen before the doctrine of stare decisis and the authority of the decisions of the SCOTUS. How is this different? Money is at stake, but I believe Justice Lehner can and did set aside any personal gain in favor of reaching the right conclusion. Any other outlook would be the absolute indictment of the judiciary in the eyes of the public which was discussed before.

- 1123/1150

I'm really impressed by the high level of discussion on this thread (the later posts, at least).

Remember, in addition to $137k the Justices also get a free parking permit valid on any Manhattan street. That alone has to be worth at least $10k.

Arguments advanced by judges: (1) they don't make what big law associates make and they should make considerably more. (2) If they don't get raises they were will be high level of attrition (3) They are only asking for an increase to offset the cost of living increases over the last 10 years.

These claims are all bogus. And to sue for it, in the middle of a recession is even more ridiculous. I will address their arguments (albeit really briefly) one by one.

(1) The average lawyer makes $50,000 coming out of law school if they have job. Most state judges unlike federal judges are not plucked from big law but from state positions like prosecutors or legal aid. The average big law lawyer puts in 60 hour weeks, I don't judges work more than 40. So the comparison between what big law lawyers make and what state judges make is not particularly apt.

(2) State judges can resign if they want to work as a partner at a law firm and make more money. If the salary was such a hardship and their exit opportunities were so great, many would do so. So this argument that somehow not raising will lead to a high rate of attrition is ridiculous. Even at the federal level, where fed. judges are the cream of the crop, few judges retire to return to big law. Even though in many cases, most of the fed judges were big law partners. They recognize the benefits of public service and the better quality of work and life that they have as a result of working in public service.

(3) If cost-of-living adjustment is such a big issue than why do judges in Elmira get paid as much as those who work in Manhattan? I would have more respect for cost-of-living arguments if the judges in upstate New York, who are already very well compensated, would not be receiving the same raise. Moreover, their last raise was a huge one and probably took into consideration that they would not be getting another for awhile.

Apologies for the typos.

12:05,
I was using the term "political question" loosely, but there is NO question that a judge with this degree of interest in the outcome of a case is ethically bound to recuse himself. Judges aren't even allowed to hear cases involving a corporation in which they own a single share of stock, which is far less of a pecuniary interest than they have in the outcome of this action. There is not a single state judge in New York who can ethically hear this case, and for that reason it is, de facto, non-justicable.

If judges can sue for a pay raise, Manhattan Assistant DA's and Southern District AUSA's should also sue. They make far less than judges and on average have much better academic and legal qualifications.

Its really annoying to read all the elitist crap questioning the competence of NY state judges, such as 10:31. I went to an ivy and turned down a federal clerkship offer in favor of the NYS offer. Next time someone drools over the quality of the law and the judges coming out of federal court, ask them which side of foley square actually succeded in abolishing the death penalty and forcing more educational spending. BTW, for the assclowns on this board, it sure wasn't any of their precious federales....

I concur with 10:31. It is not elitist crap to point out that the judges on the court could not make big law salaries. The judges argue that somehow that they are underpaid because they don't make what a small percentage of lawyers make. Most bloggers understand that most public interest lawyers and small firm lawyers make far less than what judges are complaining about. How many Albany-based lawyers do you know that start at $160,000?

Even among the Court of Appeals in NY, http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/judges.htm, the judges there are coming from mostly small firm and public interest law backgrounds and their pay now far exceeds what they were paid prior to their appointment on the court.

All these comments about "Biglaw." Give me a break. Most of the major law firms make the bulk of their money by having their associates churn hours out in very creative ways (e.g., 1 hour transmittal letters). They operate similar to the contractors who provide the Pentagon toilet seats and hammers. The thing is, the pay discrepency has become so huge that now 1st year associates working on mickey mouse legal affairs make more than judges with 30 times the experience who make daily decisions impacting the lives of millions of people (e.g., SCOTUS justices). All these poor judges want is to not be given de facto pay cuts. What is so wrong with that?

We all know that elected representatives don't vote themselves pay raises because they are afraid doing so will offend voters and, after all, they have so many other ways they can make money (e.g., Honoraria or being asked by a major donor to sit on a board or invest in a real estate deal). These buffoons in Congress even get to keep the campaign war chests when they leave office. So an unintended consequence of the way these representatives conduct their affairs is that, by tying the judges pay to theirs, they shaft the judges. Give these judges a break. They have to pay for college just like everyone else. They need family vacations like everyone else. They should not be forced into living at a level so dramatically below other lawyers with similar levels of experience. The most outrageous example are the SCOTUS justices. Not only do they make decisions impacting millions of americans, but these decisions impact future generations of millions of americans. Yet, they get paid less than 1st year associates who spend their days in libraries doing "research." What a joke (and unfortunately, a cruel one played on the judges).

Judges need to work for a living. What about the devastation most (not all) have caused to litigants. They deserve no pay raise, and should live like most of the litigants they try and ruin live.

If Judges can sue for a pay raise, litigants should be able to sue Judges when the Judges fail to decide according to law. How about Robert A. Lifson (running for reelection in Suffolk County) dating Carol Mackenzie and reviewing her Supreme Court cases at the same time.