first!

What is crazy is that judges in SDNY are paid the same as judges in D. Montana. There is a huge difference in cost of living--and judges' salary should be calibrated to their buying power in the districts in which they sit.

No constiutional prohibition on stagnant pay. If you want the prestige and life tenure of an Art. III judgeship, suck it up and deal with the pay.

i'm sorry to say but that salary probably does a good job of ferreting outpeople who don't really want to be there.

most people survive on much less.

Many years ago, my shoulder was tapped for a possible federal judgeship post. I declined. Being a federal judge is prestigious in any social circle. Being a state or local court (traffic, small claims, etc.) is a prestige symbol only if your family or social circle is comprised of unsophisticated simpletons. The truth is I agree a federal judge's wages are insufficient to lead a "prestigious" lifestyle. If you notice, most folks that are part of Commissar Obama's red circle (known as the Presidential Cabinet pre-Obama) are people that are already wealthy and serve knowing that their "public service" will enrich them even more down the road. Unfortunately most federal judges do not enjoy the wealth advantages of a Czar Geithner, for example. $170,000 a year? Please, that is my pocket money for the month.

in b4 Jake Emeritus

4 - You can't send your kids to private school on prestige points.

PE is becoming increasingly incoherent

I suppose I should know the answer to this question, but is the University of LaVerne College of Law fully accredited by the American Bar Association and a member in good standing of the Association of American Law Schools?

in b4 goodsharks fag

4 has a good point. Despite the pay, people are lining up for these jobs!

And the retirement benefits (discussed w/Sotomayor) are great. After a certain point, full salary for rest of your life!

7 kids!!!!!!

2 = fail

10 - actually, i don't think it is... for once.

We need to bomb the University of LaVerne back to the stone age

-DOJ Secure

I'd take a job that pays $170k with life tenure over a van down by the river any day.

quite ridiculous, really...agreeing to become a civil servant, making the voluntary choices to live in an expensive area and have multiple children, and then stepping down because they won't change the rules

My understanding is that Judge Luttig's retirement from the Fourth Circuit was largely due to salary. Judges who don't come from law firm partners frequently don't have a financial cushion, and can't send their kids to whatever fancy pants school they think they need to.

Only "unsophisticated simpletons" use incorrect phrases like "is comprised of." More sophisticated groups comprise better writers (see what I did there?)

Let me guess, you didn't make law review, did you?

PE, how can you mend a broken heart? How come a loser never wins?

169K to work 9-5 (or less if you choose to within reason). You can have your clerk draft as much of your work as you want. There is absolutely no threat of losing your job due to "reduced demand for legal services." Your only real threat of losing your job is if you accept bribes (Alcee Hasting - in which case you simply become a Congressman) or sexually assault employees (Judge Kent - in which case you go to prison). Finally you have the power to strike down laws as unconsitituional. Give me a F'ing break. If only we all would be so unlucky as Judge Larson.

What's more annyoing- a federal judge complaining about the pay, or a recent law school grad complaining he doesn't make enough to pay back his loans?

The problem is totally the 7 kids. Double-income biglaw associate salaries won't even pay for that if you're in an expensive city with shitty public schools (SF/NY). O'Scannlain can do it because he probably bought his house a million years ago for fifty bucks and Prop 13 means his property tax bill is next to nothing.

But agreed that this guy's a douche for whining about something he agreed to. And he shouldn't have had SEVEN fucking kids as a judge unless he had family money or his wife was a biglaw partner/exec/banker/otherwise family breadwinner.

What a bunch of piss ants that comment on this blog. Anyone who believes federal judges are adequately paid is a fucking idiot. These comments are so stupid it isn't worth responding.

Judge Larson is a good judge. He also sits in Riverside, which is a considerably more affordable place to live than nearby L.A. or O.C. My guess is that he will not jump to a firm, but rather to an ADR shop.

Judge Larson is a good judge. He also sits in Riverside, which is a considerably more affordable place to live than nearby L.A. or O.C. My guess is that he will not jump to a firm, but rather to an ADR shop.

I think hearing about John Quinn showing up to court in a chaufferred Maybach eventually got to this guy....

Supply, demand. By definition, judges aren't "underpaid," because there are dozens of attorneys clamoring for every seat made vacant. HTH.

I think US district court judge is a pretty cool guy. Eh makes judicial decisions and doesn't afraid of anything

Judge Larson works in the Riverside Division. My guess is he over renovated his home in the inland empire and now he's about to be forclosed when his rate resets to 9% on a 2 million dollar loan for a house worth about a $1.50.

Hi, I'm PE, I go on abovethelaw.com everyday and brag about what I'm not and what I'll never be. Even if I am who I say I am, I think it's cool tell losers on ATL about my wealth. I've never been laid. kthxbi.

Wah wah... stop overpopulating the earth. As a former extern I can confidently say that judges have ridiculously easy lives. Definitely worth the salary trade-off.

I am sure that his huge book of portable business will land him a job in biglaw making serious cash in no time. If of course by "huge book" I mean his 7 kids and by biglaw I mean "trafficker in white slavery"

good luck steve. I look forward to bringing you on to do document review. Temp of course

Nearly every lawyer in the federal government makes less than a US District Judge. For that matter, everyone on the GS scale makes less than a federal trial judge. Almost everyone in the senior executive service makes less. While pretty secure, none of those positions have life tenure or the extremely lucrative retirement provisions or the prestige of the bench. Are all those people unable to support families? How much should everyone be getting paid?

28, I think John Quinn makes more than any other law firm partner in the country. Maybe Marty Lipton competes. But probably not.

20, you're not exactly correct and an assshole. How's that small pen1$ working out for you?

Maybe biglaw partners make to much...

I think quinn emmanuel is a pretty cool guy. eh drives around in maybachs and doesnt afraid of anything

"doesnt afraid of anything"

Again, 35, the issue isn't that he can't support "a family" on this $$. It's that he obviously can't support a crazy-times fundamentalist 7-kids family and should have realized this before foregoing birth control.

Art. III judges have awesome retirement benes - both in terms of income and health insurance.

Factor in the value of those and this guy is really pulling in well north of $200k a year in compensation.

Not huge money but enough to support a normal family on and enough to draw people to the prestige of the federal bench.

I like the 30/39 shtick. But I'm sure I'll quickly tire of it.

6/PE - you did shtick about a suicide. go away.

43 -only if it gets overused

Newflash: It's called "civil service" for a reason. The U.S. public cannot afford to pay the bloated salaries found at top firms. If you want the money, work in the private sector.

5, you have a point and I agree. There is the inverse argument, however, that the only way to attract and retain quality is to pay handsomely for it. Judge Larson would be a case in point.

I'm not sure I want a judiciary comprised only of people who are comfortable with relative poverty (esp in CA and NY) or independently wealthy.

As to 18's point, when these salary levels were established, this was a very lucrative position. Part of the reasoning is that a well paid judge is less vulnerable to corrupting forces. The number is still impressive but has remained static as its value has declined.

I think we would be wise to have a national discussion about whether judgeships should be compensated as viable alternatives to private practice; whether we still worry that our judges are prone to accepting bribes; whether they should be paid in line with other federal civil servants (which would amount to much less).

I've been coming to ATL for a little bit now and again as a 3rd year NY biglaw assoc., never comment, but I really fucking hate Partner Emeritus. What a charlatan dicklicking virgin law student. Get a life sickko.

29 is correct. Although most federal judges could make significantly more money elsewhere, there is always an abundance of highly qualified applicants. Thus, the market tells us they are not underpaid. My judge hasn't worked a 5-day week all year and is never here at 5 p.m., so there's that.

Maybe if had a bit more self- control and did not spawn seven rugrats, he would not be in this predicament. Seven? Really?

THE PLIGHT OF A MAN WHO CHOSE TO CREATE HIS OWN FINANCIAL BURDEN BY HAVING SUCH A LARGE FAMILY PALES IN COMPARISON TO THAT OF THE MAYER BROWN SUMMERS WHOM HAVE HAD NO COMMUNICATION AS TO THEIR OFFERS. THIS IS AN INJUSTICE OF THE HIGHEST MAGNITUDE THAT MUST BE REMEDIED.

25: Yet, you did. Go fuck yourself.

47, good points, but there isn't any evidence, Larson notwithstanding, that the federal judiciary is having any trouble attracting and retaining quality talent. One judge quitting because he has seven kids is hardly an damning indictment of the system.

Most of them have made their money and paid the kids' private tuition by the time they're appointed. And if they haven't, then they probably weren't on track to make big money in the first place.

20,

"unsophisticated simpleton" certainly comprises people who claim to be correcting someone else's writing but are themselves mistaken.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise, 3rd entry. Douches like you are the reason for the usage note directly below it.

I'll take that fuckin job.

I don't see what the big deal is. Guys in my high school used to support a family with 7 kids by working as federal judges. It's not that hard.

Isn't "unsophisticated simpleton" a redundant redundancy?

Arbitrators who are former Federal judges bill at about $600 an hour. Even with the hit to benefits, he'll double his current annual takehome in the first six months.

That guy looks like Tim Robbins.

54 obliterated 20. wow.

Vlad says: Judge Larson is not that smart and shouldn't be a federal judge. The label on the condom package says to remove condom from the package and cover the penis before having sexual intercourse, not after intercourse.

60 = 54

If biglaw associates in their second year of practice make more than federal judges, then maybe biglaw associates are overpaid...

That's what happens when you don't use a condom for the first 6 and then decide all of a sudden decide to use it from now on...

Of course federal judges are underpaid. But in our idiotic, under-educated country, politicians do not have the balls to explain to your average person that judges make less than first year associates. Your average asshole on the street, who's making 35K a year cannot relate to the legal market and is too stupid to understand that the legal market should be what governs judicial pay, not the general job market.

That being said, this judge is a horrible example for Justice Roberts to use as part of an argument in front of Congress that judge's salaries should be higher. Who does he think he is, having seven kids? Who does that nowadays? It not only is ridiculously expensive, but also almost surely forces his wife to be a housewife, which is very unusual with judges nowadays. Also, it's unfair to force kids to be raised in those conditions. Here's a radical new idea: birth control.

That's what happens when you don't use a condom for the first 6 and then decide all of a sudden decide to use it from now on...

54 just pwn3d 20. Booya!

I believe he could certainly afford a vasectomy on his paltry salary.

37 and 54:

You hurt my widdle feewings!

-20

Query, what exactly is the point of being a federal judge if you spend all your time banging your own wife? I would do him. I am not sure what turns me on more a federal judge or a partner in a law firm. And no, associates with no chance of making partner don't turn me on. I'm blushing.

Junior associates DO get laid off and DO NOT get full salary for life. Federal judges are fully aware of the trade-offs.

Given that this guy was a Bush appointee, he probably doesn't believe in birth control.

OMGz, the pay is so low, whateverwillwedo, now we'll never get enough qualified district court judges.

Who the fuck cares. It's like shark's teeth. Lose one district court judge, and 68 qualified applicants will rise up to take his/her place. If nobody was lining up, then maybe it's time to talk a pay raise. But because one whiner can't support 7 (!) kids in Los Angeles in the style he desires, this is somehow significant?

What a drama queen.

Tell that bitch of a wife to stop spending.

63,

You've never been to federal court have you? You get many nice perks as a federal judge. Offices bigger than any big firm partner. Two type A clerks a year to do all of the heavy lifting. Amazing benefits. No need to save for retirement because of the amazing retirement plan.

i say they're over paid -- they're not under paid until you can't recruit adequately skilled judges to fill open positions.

Federal judges may or may not be underpaid. There are countless VALID arguments going either way.

However, the argument that does NOT cut the cheese is this: "There are people lining up for Federal Judge positions."

There are also people lining up to be partners at Wachtell. That doesn't mean Wachtell partners are overpaid.

Can we get this former judge to replace Roxanna in the Notes from the Breadline column?

38 wins.

Judge Larson at the heart of it is being childish. With respect to all federal judges but one in Florida that I am aware of, they had to actively seek out the post and network politically. It is not supposed to be a job that you enter into lightly. He knew what the salary would be. A reasonably prudent person would have realized the high cost of raising seven minor children. Public service as a federal judge is certainly more glamorous than public service as a public defender. However at the core public service requires commitment and sacrifice. Judge Larson seemingly did not understand either component of public service. The bench is better off without his successor than a child who is going to cry about not receiving a TOKEN increase in earnings.
- BigLaw Associate who earns more than a federal judge and has zero dependents

As a former law clerk in the CACD (not for SGL) and practitioner in the district, Judge Larson's resignation is a big deal. He's a thoughtful, proactive jurist who was VERY active amongst members of the CACD bench. He has played a big role in modernizing the way that the courts and judges do business and is well respected.

I think there's a lot to be said for the state of judicial pay, especially in high COL areas. The CACD is notorious for its inability to fill vacancies in a timely manner. A lot of the new appointees have come from the Superior Court, government, or plaintiff's firms, which is fine, except when you consider that a large percentage of federal filings involve complicated practice areas that really require a jurist who has experience litigating and trying sophisticated civil litigation.

There are lots of private practice attorneys who would be great judges, but can't take the financial hit when they have private school tuition to pay (c'mon, given a choice, you wouldn't choose LAUSD schools either).

I need more money. I try to use my knowladge to get it. but i have no merits. try http://www.thaimerits.com/

77, it's a straw man when you remove the modifier "qualified." Now recommence.

re: #80
Find/replace "without" to "with"

77 = moron

Wachtell partners = market-supported salary.

Article III judges = government set salary.

See the difference?

77 confuses overpaid/underpaid. People lining up at Wachtell indicates that they are not underpaying, just as people lining up for Article III means Uncle Sam is not underpaying. Neither is having trouble attracting the candidates they seek.

Watchell partners and federal judges could be overpaid, but they are not underpaid.

Simple principles of supply and demand lead me to conclude that Federal judges are NOT underpaid as there are many highly-qualified attorneys that would accept a Federal appointment without pay. That said, if we'd like to see some diversity on the Federal bench, we should raise their salaries.

If I had the opportunity to become a federal judge, I would do it without question. Why? You live a relatively headache-free life where you work for yourself and have people suck up to you all day. You can't get fired. You don't have to worry about retirement. Judges do whatever they want, when they want. Most of them take the entire month of August off, in addition to the three weeks in December, the week of Independence Day, and the random two weeks in April. I know a DJ that leaves EVERY DAY at 1 in the afternoon. $170,000 seems just about right.

Agree with 81. I'm a former district court clerk from a high COL district. Judges (the good ones) work really hard. It's not unfair or unreasonable to want to be able to provide for one's family--and, that, btw, is what Judge Larson is doing. He realized he wasn't making enough, so he quit. Fair enough.

The question for the rest of us is this: do we want people like Judge Larson or Judge Luttig etc. resigning from the bench? Are we comfortable with members of the judiciary only coming from the classes of elite intellectuals who have family money, or who don't have a a family, or who don't care about providing for their family?

Judicial salaries used to be high enough to attract top talent (and, as someone else pointed out, to protect against bribery). Now we're seeing some of that top talent leave.

Congress was out of line linking judicial salaries to congressional salaries (fine if they wanted to do it to themselves since most politicians have $ prior to running for office, but not fair to link another group which doesn't have a vote in the matter, esp. when that group tends to be appointed from lifetime public servants).

At the very least, salaries need to be readjusted for COL. Right now, some judges are able to afford a comfortable life in their districts while judges sitting in coastal cities have much lower buying power. (In that sense, adjusting for COL would make judges' pay equal in real dollar buying power, if not in terms of actual salary.)

@ 19:

Luttig resigned because Bush didn't elevate him to SCOTUS. I think he all-but said as much when he left for Boeing.

When a partner leaves biglaw to take less money on the federal bench and have more time with his family, do we hear about how biglaw is losing top talent? People make choices for disparate reasons. Anyone who has the federal judge option on the table has a full range of acceptable career choices.

It says in the LaVerne post that he works in the Riverside chambers. While $169k would be tough to raise a family with 7 kids on in LA (high rents, maybe not too apt on sending kids to LAUSD schools), it goes a long way in the Inland Empire. The median income for a family in pretty much all IE cities - perhaps excluding Claremont or Chino Hills, which are at least 1/2 an hour to Riverside - is below $100,000/year. And the real estate market is much lower in the area too - though I guess that's covered by La Verne. Not sure how he can't handle it.

If we were so concerned about losing talented jurists, we wouldn't let the process be governed by cronyism and political appointment. Jacking up the salary does not affect the quality of those whom get appointed; all it does is make those picked on the basis of their pedigree and connections less likely to quit after a few years, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

29, 49, 88 got it right.

The large number of qualified applicants prove that federal judges are not underpaid by any sane market analysis. Also remember that salary is only one component of their compensation, Article III judges can retire and draw full salary for the rest of their lives, never have to fret about job security, rarely work more than 40 hours a week, and answer to no one. Associates may make more in salary, but they get paid much less per hour worked, and as we all know, associates have absolutely no job security.

If you have been practicing law for 20 years and haven't saved up enough money to have a very nice house with a minimal mortgage, you are spending too much money.

Judge Larson. Let your kids take out loans, like the rest of us.

89, this douchebag had SEVEN kids. This is completely atypical. He's not quitting because he can't provide for a normal family; he's quitting because he can't provide for a wacko 9-person clan that he chose to have (and which nearly everyone else chooses not to have).

You'd have a hard time affording seven kids on a biglaw partner's salary. You must understand that federal judge pay policy shouldn't be crafted around the ability to provide for more than three times the average number of children.

Judges work much less than trial lawyers.

Children are a blessing.

Judges don't bill their time. They don't deal with clients. They don't have "partners" in a "business."

None of us are entirey right on this one.

1. Yes, USDC is a great job with great perks (albeit a bit monastic in who you can associate with and with personal security issues), but it pays a lot less than most of these men and women could command in the private sector. It should pay less, it is public service, but the gap has gotten too large.

2. The man applied for, lobbied for, and took the job knowing what it paid and knowing that because salaries have been linked to congressional salaries for much of the past 40 years, the salaries increase at a miniscule rate.

There are a lot of law firm partners, and not just at BigLaw firms, who cannot afford to take the pay cut to become a federal judge (i.e., we're not independently wealthy, bought our homes in the last 10 years or so, and had sufficient social skills to have children).

I'm a civil litigation attorney. I try cases in federal court for corporations, usually defendants, but sometimes plaintiffs. Our current federal judiciary, at least in the states where I practice (one is CA) is fairly good, but there are too few judges on the bench who come from a private practice civil litigation background and understand what minor consideration we need to be able to run our practices in a fashion that preserves our sanity and doesn't bankrupt. If you've ever heard a judge (usually one who never worked outside the public sector or academia) say "Counsel there are ____ lawyers in your firm; surely someone else could take over this case adn try it" then you know how much we need people on the bench who have handled civil litigation in private practice. Now, Larson was never one of those, but his resignation is merely a symptom.

100,

I live in California. After 5 years of practice, I could afford to make $170k in perpetuity. I could even have 7 kids. What I couldn't expect, however, it is own a $2 million house and send all of them to Harvard on my dime.

Couldn't he have a reality show like Jon & Kate?

The solution to Judge Larson's financial problems should be obvious: reality tv. The pitch to TLC would be "12 Kids and Counting" meets "Judge Judy." He can invite the cameras into his home and chambers, and just watch the dollars roll in. If he could work a singing competition into the mix, he'd be able to set up a trust fund for each of those kids.

54 would have owned but the link he posted was broken. So 20 and 54 are both disqualified.

81,

If you are from LA, why would you suggest that anyone actually send their kids to LAUSD? That isn't the only public school option in LA County.

It's a goddam wonder anyone volunteers for crappy government jobs like cabinet secretary, DOJ, POTUS, and federal judge. Qualified people are clearly not interested in these positions at the current compensation levels. This crisis should be priority #1!

7 children cost a lot, but abstinence is free.

106 here, I forgot to add that since there are ~850 Article III judges the fact that 1 quit because of pay really signifies that this is a systemic crisis threatening our entire system and way of life.

Larson's bitterness stems from his *just* missing out on the best time to practice law. I am, of course, referring to the golden age of biglaw -- the 19-fucking-80's.

Back then, as young associates, we would have access to (i) 24 hour shoe shiners; (ii) gorgeous women who would wait outside our office building and practically beg us for mind-blowing sex; (iii) unlimited budgets for lunches; (iv) Rolex watches upon the closing of every $10,000,000 deal; and, of course, (v) all the top-quality cocaine we could possibly want.

Had Larson experienced the foregoing, I promise you he would never have left biglaw, and would definitely not be suffering financially right now.

Fuck, this decade is beyond depressing.

Judge should have learned to wear a condom five kids ago.

I know I must place my family’s interest, particularly the future of my children, ahead of my own fervent desire to remain a beach bum.

there is a spectrum; some judges are underpaid, and some have no business being judges.

He's C.D.Cal.! California state judges make more than district judges. It's why some of the best judges in Calif. are in the state system and not the federal. Unless they get an appellate appointment, they don't think it's worth the drop in pay. Plus, once your get a superior courtship, you have to try and f-up to loose it.

Yes, are you kidding me? It's California for Pete's sake. $170k there is 90k anywhere else in the country or less.

Definitely underpaid (depending on region of the country).

You can't underestimate the value of job security!

When judges face market realities, then they are entitled to market rate salaries. Lifetime tenure with a massive pension are more than compensatory. Not to mention that a judge's schedule is not as consistently grueling as that of a practicing partner at a top firm.

The boomers really need to realize something. Your employer does not owe you the highest wages in the world AND unquestioned job security AND benefits in perpetuity. You make tradeoffs for those things.

This judge should do what the rest of us do. Do not have more children than you can afford. Prudently manage your money and debt. Save and invest as wisely as you can. When the family is raised (which you were able to enjoy because you were around while they were growing up), you'll be able to enjoy all the money coming in. Meanwhile, a lot of the senior partners whose salaries you envy will have had two failed marriages, probably some sort of substance abuse problem, kids who hate them and firms that are trying to put them out to pasture to steal their clients. That's if they are not already in the grave after suffering a heart attack or stroke.

I feel bad for this guy. I grew up in the poverty that his family is surely living in right now.

My parents raised 9 kids on 30k a year.

His family is probably barely getting by.

This is awful.

81 here. I can tell you that save for a few wacko judges in the CACD, the judges and their law clerks work incredibly long hours because the case load is absolutely unmanageable unless everyone pitches it. This is not a district where the judges lunch for 3 hours and play Brickbreaker on the bench while occasionally throwing out a zinger from some law clerk bench memo.

There isn't time for that when your goal is to kick as many civil cases as possible so you can focus on the 8 months of criminal jury trials that you have to manage every year. Add that to the fact that there are vacancies that have to be filled and newly resigned judges whose cases are being transferred to already heavy dockets. And then add the asshole attorneys who file motions and then settle cases and who don't bother to let the court know about that until the hearing date after the clerks and the judges have already worked up the case.

Most of the judges I know aren't greedy and even laugh when their little proteges leave for starting salaries that far exceed their own. But we can't ignore the fact that an educated and experienced judiciary requires tapping into the private sector where compensation levels (and ego stroking) are ungodly. Unfortunately, the "prestige" of judging is outweighed by the cruel realities of economics.

Judges Stephen Larson, Paul Cassell, and U.W. Clemon are not the only federal jurists to step down, a least in part, because of salary. This was also a rumored factor for Judges McConnell and Luttig (McConnel is now a well-compensated constitutional law scholar at Stanford, and Luttig is Chief Counsel to Boeing).

While some brilliant and talented people will take up the robe for a small fraction of what they could earn in the private sector, the piss-poor salary will continue to drive people away (to places where they can earn 500-1500% more).

81,

You aren't the only former C.D. Cal. clerk. All of Roybal isn't humming at 8:00 p.m. The clerks work hard. Some of the judged work very hard, others put in a solid 50 hours a week. Some of them are brilliant, and don't need to work 24/7.

"29, 49, 88 got it right."

No they didn't. They're misapplying micro principles to labor market economics. There are multiple applicants for every job - it doesn't prove that any individual salary is sufficient or too high. Learn something beyond undergrad econ and then try again.

What's the matter with this guy?
The wife forgot to mention that they had seven kids until after he told the Pres he would sit on the bench?
Is he too good to get a second job if he wants a big family and a prestigious judgeship? In this economy, he could practice by asking, "Would you like fries with that opinion?"

First to say all the 50%+ voting yes are federal juTTTges.

Larson is one of the better judges in the CADC and will be missed. I am in LA, and am finding the federal bench to be made up if (1) lifers who like to make life hell for the overpaid lawyers who appear before them and can't do anything else because their wives don't want them at home and they pissed off too many people to go into ADR and (2) sharp up and comers who eventually decide they have to put their families interests above the ideals they had and pursued back when they were up and coming out of lawschool Same think with the LA County Bench. The best judges are openly announcing that they can't afford not to pass up $5k-10k per day ADR fees and leaving us with cranky old lifers mixed with freshly mined public defenders/district attorneys who can't understand why civil litigants need discovery to try a case.

Larson is one of the better judges in the CADC and will be missed. I am in LA, and am finding the federal bench to be made up if (1) lifers who like to make life hell for the overpaid lawyers who appear before them and can't do anything else because their wives don't want them at home and they pissed off too many people to go into ADR and (2) sharp up and comers who eventually decide they have to put their families interests above the ideals they had and pursued back when they were up and coming out of lawschool Same thing with the LA County Bench. The best judges are openly announcing that they can't afford not to pass up $5k-10k per day ADR fees and leaving us with cranky old lifers mixed with freshly mined public defenders/district attorneys who can't understand why civil litigants need discovery to try a case.

Respectfully, most big money attorneys don't have a lot of kids. I suspect that when hard charging attorney slips into bed at 1:00 am and snuggles up against the wife and says "Hey, lets start a family." She is likely to bolt out of bed and yell -
"Who the Hell are you?"
"Who? I am your Husband!" , he indignantly replies.
"Oh yeah" she retorts, "Prove it, sign this check....."

I'm sorry, but everyone is missing the point.

The "judges are underpaid" argument relies on a comparison between the judges' current salary and what they'd be making as partners at big firms or big-time corporate gigs.

Well, ok, what do partners make at big firms? I don't have the exact #'s handy--I stopped coming here regularly once Elie took over--but let's conservatively say it's somewhere in the 500k range.

If that's true, then to rectify the problem, we wouldn't have to give the judges a moderate raise. We'd have to give them raises that were well over $250,000 each. (And this isn't even scratching the surface of the raise they'd have to get to approach Luttig/Boing levels).

So while there may be enough political will out there to get the judges into the upper 180s or 190s (doubtful, but possible), getting them there still wouldn't put them in the same ballpark with Biglaw partners.

So unless John Roberts thinks he's going to push congress into giving all federal judges 250% pay raises, there is ALWAYS going to be this problem. And if there's always going to be this problem, what's the point of having the conversation? Moving them from 169k to 185 will do absolutely nothing.

And if it will do absolutely nothing, let's save the money, and continue enjoying the fact that even with the current salary, we still have scores of over-qualified people who have fewer than 7 kids and are literally lining up and begging for these jobs.

127 killed the thread.

First, to all of the 1ls posting about a judges retirement, do you even know what it takes to retire from the bench? (yes there is a rule - 80/20/65). Do you know there are actually requirements for judges on senior status (that congress is trying to increase). Lastly, I suspect many of the complaners/protesters on here are the same ones that complain their bonus was not big enough or they are not getting the big raise this year. These judges have not gotten a real pay raise since the 90's (I am sure someone will correct me but I believe it was 1994), and have gone MANY years without a COLA increase. That is the point may seem to be missing here.

It should also be noted that judicial salaries are tied to congressional salaries, how does everyone feel about giving congress a raise?

While judges should get COLA increases, they really can't complain too much about their pay. Yes, they make much less than private practice lawyers, but they keep their own hours and enjoy the prestigue perks. Also, they always neglect to remind people that they will be collecting generous retirement benefits for the rest of their lives -- and will have health insurance through the federal government. Their fancy insurance is worth the pay cut any day because it means they don't HAVE to work once they retire no matter how young they are at retirement.

I think another question to ask is whether the measure should even be Biglaw salaries in large markets. The vast majority of federal judges sit in places where the NYC salary structure does not exist. In the secondary market states, the average law firm partner makes $300,000-$400,000 or so. The judges in those places are doing just fine.

Maybe there should be a modest location differential, but it won't ever come close to private salaries and won't make a difference for judges who are primarily concerned with the cash.

I'm all in favor of judges getting paid more or less based on their location. Everyone knows that Central District of California is far more expensive than say, the Western District of Kentucky. And the cases in major metro districts tend to be more complex overall as well. Nothing wrong with reasonable COLAs either. Inflation affects everyone. Hell, I'd even support merit based bonus pay for above average judges if someone came up with a sensible system for determining the amount.

However, judges aren't in private practice. They just don't have the same headaches that private practice lawyers at their level have. I acknowledge that most judges work hard. But so do a lot of other government lawyers, like AUSAs, federal defenders and their respective counterparts at the state level. I don't hear a lot of complaints from those guys.

Within certain proscribed limits, enterprising judges are also free to teach, speak and publish for additional compensation should they be so inclined.

And speaking of district judges, why do we even want judges who are drawn from the Biglaw world?

What do Biglawyers know about running a courtroom? Most of those guys don't even see one for the first 6 years of practice, and after that they maybe get to try what, one or two cases a year? If that?

Given what the job actually entails, don't we kind of want our judges to be drawn from the AUSA/mid-size firm levels anyways?

Former Federal Judge Joe Kendall served on the federal bench in Texas from 1992 until 2002 (Northern District of Texas). Purportedly retired for the same reasons. Do they get to keep the federal salary if they retire?

Perhaps if he strapped on a condom every now and again he wouldn't have to whore himself out to the highest paying law firms he can find.

Why did he stop at 7 kids? Why not shoot for 20?

Why did he stop at 7 kids? Why not shoot for 20?

Just to toss this out there, I'm a 1L who is surviving quite comfortably on less than $14,000 per year. My family has never made more than $60,000 per year. To say that a salary almost 3 times that is not enough pay to live on is, in my opinion, mind-boggling.

Anyone who talks shit about Judge Larson is a fucking moron and should pull a Chris Benoit. There is no doubt he is underpaid for the amount of work he does. He is a good man and I hope to God you litigate against him because he will rip you a new asshole and dispense some of that fool-proof sperm upon your face.

I saw Larson on the golf course ( such as Ojai ) all the time. Who was paying for that? And, didnt he have 7 kids when he took the job 3.5 years ago?

They're underpaid, but only by a little bit. I'm not worried about them. Even the ones with seven kids.

They're underpaid, but only by a little bit. I'm not worried about them. Even the ones with seven kids.