After another round of threatening, pleading and cajoling, the issue of judicial pay raised for New York’s judges came back to the editorial page of the  New York Times this week.  As Eric the Turk noted, Chief Judge Judy Kaye flip-flopped on the judiciary suing the State, again.  If she doesn’t sue, she may  write another hard-hitting, scathing op-ed.

The problem with going to the mattresses too many times is that, no matter how right you are or how persuasive your arguments, when the Legislature just doesn’t succumb, it soon becomes clear that you’re shooting blanks.  Poor judges, so much money spent to get elected, so much authority within the confines of a majestic courtroom, and so little appreciation anywhere else.

When this whole disaster began, I  took the opportunity to remind the judges that, although they deserved a raise, their quest for outside support for their predicament raised an issue.  These same people were awfully harsh on lawyers for the indigent who had gone 17 years without a raise, when they had only gone 10.  Do lawyers’ children not want to eat everyday too?

But this time, the New York Times editorial went a bit too far in their argument for raises, unintentionally demeaning those individuals who sit on the bench because of belief in public service and a need to have their lives serve a greater purpose.  Sure, they still need to get paid to feed their families, send their kids to college and buy the occasional new Toyota.  But to tie their motives to cash is undignified and misguided.

In judging, as in most lines of work, competitive salaries are important for attracting the best work force.

No. No. No.  Judging is different.  The best work force for the bench does not include those seduced by the pay.  Not merely because the pay, even with a huge raise, will still be miserable, but because the “best work force” for the position is motivated by a sincere sense of public service.

Thankfully, somebody who knows what he’s talking about  wrote the New York Times and straightened out this misguided New York Times position.

While there is no doubt that judicial raises are long overdue and mired in politics, I take issue with your assertion that “in judging, as in most lines of work, competitive salaries are important for attracting the best work force.” No one should sit in judgment of others because the money is good. To suggest that salaries are the motivator for exceptional people to assume the bench is to denigrate the integrity of the judiciary.

Not to mention that, even with a raise, the salaries will still fall significantly below that of a first year associate, including bonus, at any major law firm. Judges must be paid appropriately, and never again left to beg for crumbs from the politicians. But not because they are only in it for the money.

Of course the judiciary needs a pay raise.  This entire situation has been unseemly and wrong.  But in the desperation to move the Legislature off its conflicted, self-serving backside, let’s not drag the judiciary off the bench and into the gutter.  We may not think that every judge is perfect, but we aspire to a legal system where they are worthy or, and receive, everyone’s respect. 

Smart guy, whoever wrote that letter to the New York Times.  Too bad it only appears in the online edition and they didn’t have room to put it into the print edition (like they said they were going to).