One of the great joys of getting home delivery of the New York Times is that you get most of the Sunday Times on Saturday, meaning that you get to address the editorials before they technically come out.  That said, tomorrow’s Sunday’s NYT will include(s)  an editorial in its regional section about salary increases for New York’s judges.  No shock there, but the justification for it is quite curious.

Imagine a courtroom scene, maybe something out of “Law & Order.”  Then ask yourself which official earns the least of all those important people sitting in front of the jury.  If you guessed the judge, chances are you’re right.

Certainly the defense lawyer, if a private attorney, makes far more in hourly fees than the person with the gavel.  Some district attorneys, in New York City at least, earn more than not only the trial judge but also the chief judge.  There are even nonjudicial employees in the state judiciary system who can earn as much or more than the person who is up there making the most important decisions in the entire courthouse.

Certainly the defense lawyer?  Says who?  Where the hell does the Times editorial board get the right to make such absolutely baseless assertions?  Sure, it wants to promote a salary increase for judges, but at whose expense?  Is it now the policy of the New York Times to just make up crap that supports its position?  Apparently so.

I am not aware of any existing credible basis to establish the average income of private criminal defense attorneys in New York State or City.  As we are all painfully aware, private criminal defense lawyers don’t charge by the hour unless they want to be on welfare.  Yet another Times “let’s pretend we know what we’re talking about moment.”  And then, no mention of the rents we pay for offices, the salaries for staff, the costs for transportation and supplies and services.  Unlike judges or DAs (and I am unaware of ANY line assistant who makes anywhere near a judges’ salary), we pay our own freight, not the taxpayer.  How many judges out there would take a pay raise but be willing to pay market rents for his chambers?

There are two basic problems with a well-intended editorial gone far wrong.  First, it’s an outright fabrication.  Second, don’t push for judicial salary increases on the back of others who are working for a living as well.  It is despicable that the New York Times resorts to such hyperbolic falsehoods to pursue its editorial agenda.  Try telling it all those “wealthy” private criminal defense lawyers who struggle to find clients, get paid, carry their offices and fulfill their oaths, how good they have it. 

Maybe the Times should donate its editors’ salaries to the poverty-stricken judges, but do not offer me up as your sacrificial lamb.  I work for a living.