No judge wars in the R-J today!
Court related news reports from the R-J actually involved something other than Halverson v. Hardcastle today, with a positive report on Justice of the Peace Doug Smith’s ticket handling: Judge handles tickets just fine.
However, the R-J is disdainful of proposed salary increases for the judges who handled more cases than just about any other in the country. Editorial: Meanwhile
Perhaps the R-J should consider the thoughts expressed in “Judicial pay: Attracting the best," wherein Abner Mikva, a former federal judge commenting on congressional reuctance to raise judicial pay, notes “The real problem of inadequate judicial pay is the limits it puts on attracting judges to the bench in the first place. . . . Lawyers most appropriate for consideration as judges are at the height of their earning power in the private sector. At one time law schools were a good place to look, but even those salaries have advanced beyond the judicial levels now in existence. To ask a lawyer to go on the bench from the private sector is usually to ask that person to take a drastic reduction in earnings, as well as the other problems of living in a public fishbowl.”
While the prposed salaries of $160-170K may seem high, the reality is that good lawyers are paid much more. To put the matter in perspective, a national law firm that recently entered the Las Vegas market announced its salary for first year associates—that means 2007 law school graduates—is $130,000. There are many law firms nationally offering starting salaries of $160,000. Given that reality, raising the pay of district court judges to $160,000 and supreme court justices to $170,000 really doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch.
