An Injudicious Act? (Update)

District of Connecticut Judge Alan Nevas has announced that he’s leaving the bench over money.


A federal judge in Connecticut who oversaw political corruption cases and swore in Gov. M. Jodi Rell in 2007 has stepped down after 23 years, saying he’s frustrated Congress didn’t give judges pay raises.

Judge Alan Nevas says it’s unfair that members of Congress rejected cost-of-living increases for federal judges in December after having approved such raises for themselves and every other federal employee.

While everyone knows that the Connecticut economy is different than the rest of the nation, with almost every retirement account loaded to the gills in Gin futures, does this not strike one as incredibly poor timing?  Granted, federal judges don’t feel the declining economic conditions, considering that their dockets are always full and their paycheck arrives one way or another.  But they guy has to read a newspaper every once in a while, no?  He’s heard something about a recession?  He reads Above the Law?

We can all appreciate how difficult it is to survive on $169,300 a year.  And it was just plain wrong for everyone in the federal government to get a cost of living adjustment except judges.  It really was.  But this isn’t the time to resign in disgust if you want people to either get a message or feel sorry for you. 

And what does Judge Nevas plan to do with himself now that he flown the coop, in the era of Biglaw downsizing?


Nevas hung up his robe for good in Bridgeport federal court on Friday. He was to begin a new job in the private sector Monday, helping resolve disputes before they reach the courts.

So you took a gig with JAMS, as if that’s going to provide you with either a steady or decent living?  What could you possibly have been thinking?

H/T Gideon

Update:  The word is that Judge Nevas is leaving the bench for health reasons, and figured that he ought not waste the opportunity to make a statement about judicial salaries.  This clears up the smell that surrounded the story, and you can’t blame him for trying to use his retirement to promote a worthwhile agenda, even if it doesn’t play out as well as he might have hoped.  Best wishes to Judge Nevas on his retirement and health, and sorry for making fun of your effort.


Discover more from Simple Justice

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

5 thoughts on “An Injudicious Act? (Update)

  1. Patrick

    With all due respect to Judge Nevas, something in this story sets of my BS detector. The judge is 81 years old and has been on senior status since 1997, which means he probably hasn’t had much of a docket for over a decade. He retires with full pay.

    While I’m sure Judge Nevas will be an able mediator, and plenty of octagenarians (like Justice Stevens) are spry, it’s not probable that BigLaw firms are breaking down the door with offers at his age.

    It’s more probable that this is an old lawyer who was ready to put himself out to pasture anyway.

  2. SHG

    I smelled the same rat, but as long as Judge Nevas chose to use his retirement to make a point about judicial pay, it just seemed wrong to ignore addressing it head on.  As for the truth of the matter, I suspect you’re exactly right.

  3. martin

    The judge appears to be far removed from life outside his cocoon. There are some of us making a living on less than 40 G and noone to blame for the lack of a raise.
    If his new job is a paid position I’d like to suggest he make room for someone out of work who has a family to feed. Perhaps he could volunteer his time to pass on some of the experience of his long career

  4. Joy

    What bothers me, as a federal employee (fed defender) is that judges were singled out to not receive a COLA bump. I got it. My secretary and receptionist got it. The judge’s law clerks got it. If it had been denied across the board, I would understand that. I read Above the Law. But to deny it only to judges seems like congressional judge bashing, and I’ve had enough of that.

  5. SHG

    It is, it was and it’s wrong.  There’s no excuse for leaving judges, and judges alone, out in the cold.  But as you can see, the bigger issue (a salary increase rather than just a COLA increase) doesn’t seem to “resonate” too well with a public wondering how it’s going to buy bread this week, making this a lousy time to play this card.

Comments are closed.