As the demand for higher salaries for New York judges falls on deaf ears, the federal bench has been getting far better play out of Congress.  So naturally, somebody who has no horse in the race wants to be contrary and controversial by giving the top three reasons why judges shouldn’t receive an increase.

Scott Baker, a lawprof at North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Law, has  an op-ed in the LA Times arguing that there is “no correlation between judicial performance and judicial pay.”  And who ever said there was?  And if there was, how would you know?

Baker offers three arguments in favor of raises, which (shockingly) he then beats into the dirt. 

The first — that our federal judges will leave the bench for the more lucrative private sector if we do not raise their pay — is easily addressed. In the last seven years, only 15 out of 810 active judges have left the bench before qualifying for retirement, according to the Federal Judicial Center. If anything, the problem is not too much turnover, but too little.

This presumes that federal judges’ are out there stumping for the job because of the pay.  No one said you have to go on welfare to be a federal judge, which might be the tipping point for leaving the bench for better pay.  But the fact that money isn’t the driving motivator for judges doesn’t mean that the compensation is adequate.

The second argument is that our best-paid, and presumably most-talented, lawyers would make good judges, and these attorneys won’t join the bench because it costs them too much. Partners at some law firms earn more than $1 million a year. A federal judgeship pays less than $200,000. Only by raising judicial salaries, the argument goes, will we have a prayer of enticing any of these lawyers to become judges.

Who says Biglaw partners are the “most-talented?” Most of them haven’t seen the inside of a courtroom in years, and some couldn’t find the courthouse with a map.  They make partner because they make rain.  Duh.

Finally, the specter is raised that, without higher salaries, all our federal judges will come to the bench from lower-paying government or public-interest legal jobs, and we will lose the perspective of lawyers from the private sector.

Here’s a newsflash for you, lawprof.  There’s a whole wide world of private sector lawyers out there who don’t work for Biglaw.  Did they suddenly cease to exist?  Or are you just another biglaw sycophant who concludes that anybody who doesn’t have 1200 associates and work for multinational corporations isn’t a “real lawyer.” Sheesh.

Now that Baker has knocked down his straw man arguments, let’s deal with some reality.  There is not now, nor will there ever be, a direct correlation between the salary paid to judges, whether federal or state, and their performance.  The notion of productivity as a basis for salary increases is just foolish.  While proponents need to push ideas that fit into the common-man’s paradigm as the reason for raising judicial salaries (because otherwise there won’t be any sympathy for judges at all), the truth is that federal judges cannot earn less than first year Biglaw associates because it is demeaning to their role in the system.

You want an easy standard?  Try this:  Judges salaries should be fixed at the going rate for first year associates (including bonus) plus 10% and a free robe (just black, no arm stripes) a year.  That will bring those Biglaw partners into the fold in droves, right?