From the New York Lawyer, an article about a statement released by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct directed at the state’s 1300 underpaid judges telling them . . . what?

In warning the judges of the potential ethical repercussion of recusals, the judicial conduct commission noted that it was acting in the wake of “recent published reports that at least some judges are encouraging or engaging in acts of recusal” out of a purported “frustration over the compensation issue.”

Did the Commission actually “warn” the judges?  Let’s take a look.  This is what the statement says:

It would benefit neither the judiciary nor their justifiable interest in a fair compensation package for the Commission to be constrained to consider complaints against judges alleged to have violated these or other sections of the Rules in connection with the salary issue. The Commission urges all parties with a role to play in this matter to do so responsibly, professionally and with the utmost sensitivity to promoting public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, the courts and the administration of justice.

What in the world does that mean, “constrained to consider?”  It sounds to me as if the Commission’s message is exactly the opposite of what it appears to be, that they are giving a big wink to the judges by providing them with the roadmap around any potential rule issues and announcing that they have no plans to find themselves “constrained” to consider much of anything.

I support the judges standing up for themselves, and have come out publicly to that effect.  Others disagree with me, and that’s fine but, as far as I’m concerned, unhelpful.  The judges have played nicely with the Legislature for a decade, and have been turned into beggars.  It does beg one thing, the question of when enough is enough.

The arguments have all been made.  Everyone agrees on the right and wrong of it.  A million words have been spilled in the battle for a salary increase.  They died in vain. 

This is war.  And it was declared by the Legislature and Executive when they offered kind words but no cash.  The judges now have two choices:  Sit back, very erect in their silky black robes on their high bench in their big leather chair, knowing that you’re the only person in the room whose pay has not increased in 13 years and that you are utterly powerless, impotent, to do anything about it.  Or “exercise” individual conscience and act on it.

To those who claim it’s about dignity, I say there is nothing dignified about being proven that your impotent.  Viagra won’t help this dysfunction.  To those who claim that recusals or slow-downs will hurt the judiciary in the “eyes of its supporters,” I ask how?  How can the judiciary be hurt any more than it already is?  Will they start reducing judicial salaries?  Take away their robe dry-cleaning allowance?  Make them empty their own judicial wastebaskets?

A judge can put a defendant in prison forever.  A judge is a member of a branch of government, charged with a primary function, for better or worse, in our scheme of checks and balances.  And for all the high-sounding praise, a judge is a pawn in the game of politics.  Unless the judge says enough is enough.

It’s not like they haven’t tried.  They’ve been patient.  They’ve been dignified.  They’ve relied on the system that is the basis of harsh reprimands to litigants of all ilks.  And they’ve been screwed for it.  As I wrote over at Judicial Reports, “they didn’t start the fight, but it’s up to them to end it.”

Let’s see what the Commission plans to do about it. No pain, no gain.