United States District Court judges currently earn $165,200. How do we measure if this is too little, too much, or just right? How do you measure which is the largest horse in the barn? Is it the heaviest, the tallest, the longest from nose to tail, etc.? An investigator can get different answers because no single measurement is necessarily the correct one. However, by measuring in multiple ways, and examining the composite of the answers, we can at least approach the issue.

First, how do U.S. judges’ salaries compare to the other branches of government (all numbers are as of January 2005):

There’s no evidence of a bias against the judiciary here. Judges’ pay is in accordance with their colleagues in the other branches.

Second, what about as compared to the average American? In 2005, the average (median) full-time worker in the U.S. earned $34,043. Thus, judges earned 4.8 times the national average. We’d expect judges to earn more than the average worker. The issue becomes whether 4.8 is too little or too much. First, let’s see if it’s changed over the years.

In 1976, federal judges earned $42,000 vs. $9,142 for the average full-time employee – a ratio of 4.6. Thus, the ratio has slightly increased over the past three decades. However, for no compelling reason I chose the median, rather than the mean. Does that make a difference?

The judge’s salary versus the average worker has decreased under this analysis. Maybe 1976 was a particularly good year for judges. I picked it because that was the first year the National Center for State Courts provided data. I could have chosen 1996:

In both measurements, the ratio has decreased. There’s also something worth noting: it increased between 1976 & 1996, and then decreased! Here are the numbers for all three years, and 2000:

Ratio of U.S. judges' salary to:

So, no matter which way you measure it (mean salary vs. median), the decline occurred in the late 1990s – that’s when federal judicial salaries didn’t maintain its' ratio to the average American’s.

Now, it’s hard to generate much pity for a class of workers who are making (depending on how you measure it) anywhere from 3.6 to 4.8 times the national average. But, it shouldn’t be forgotten that judges are much better educated and somewhat older than the average worker – which tends to increase one’s income. More importantly, they could make much more in private practice or academia. This was the thrust of Roberts’ argument. However, a more apt comparison might be to other judges, not just people with law degrees. The average (median) state court trial judge earned $116,100 in 2006. The mean was $119,630. The range was $94,093 to $165,200. Overall, federal judges are doing better than their state colleagues.

What about New York state judges? Their general trial court judges averaged $136,700 – placing them 10th among the 50 states. If you adjust it for cost of living, they fall to 31st (as of January 1, 2006). Considering the fact that New Yorkers pay more in state and local taxes per capita than anyone else, it seems odd that their judges wouldn’t be closer to the top of the pay scale.

Roberts’ report argued that the lack of judicial pay amounted to a Constitutional crisis (an assertion for which it was heavily criticized). His most interesting point was this: Federal judges enjoy life tenure because they must often make appropriate, but unpopular decisions. The allure of a high-paying partnership could become so great that the role of life tenure begins to diminish – jeopardizing this Constitutional protection. Roberts didn’t explicitly state the following, but implied that it’s more difficult to make unpopular yet critical Constitutional decisions when you’re about to send out your resume.

But, what’s the solution? Pay judges like top attorneys? Of course not. Would a 20 percent increase in judicial pay truly diminish the allure of a high paying firm? Maybe for some, but how many? Enough to preclude the crisis? It’s doubtful. In either case, LexMetrics is ill-equipped to answer it.  We don’t know how much every $10,000 in additional judicial pay prevents defections to private practice. The law is used to hearing slippery slope arguments – here’s another one. Roberts thinks we’ve passed a threshold. His critics rightly clamored for more evidence to support such an assertion.

During his confirmation hearings, Roberts likened judges to umpires – calling balls and strikes:

Though a bit glib, it’s analogous to the respective salaries of a top litigator and a judge. Of course, umpires can’t become ballplayers.

Sources:

Current U.S. District Court salary: www.cnn.com

Government Employee Salaries:  CRS Report for Congress dated 1/11/2005

Average salaries for workers: U.S. Census Bureau

Average Salaries of State and Federal judges: National Center for State Courts

MLB Players’ Salaries: www.cbs.sportsline.com

MLB Umpires’ salaries: www.middletownpress.com