The General Assembly will soon have to decide whether to give Maryland judges $29,000 raises each.
For the past two years, the Judicial Compensation Commission (JCC) unsuccessfully tried to raise individual salaries by $39,858 while other state employees got pay cuts through furloughs. Now they are pushing a more moderate proposal that would still put Maryland among the top five states in judicial pay.
Maryland hasn't exactly cheated its judges, who now rank about 15th nationally in pay. So the JCC complains that they lag regionally, as if that somehow mattered. States don't compete with each other for judges.
I don't oppose all judicial raises. But I find the justifications amusing, misleading and wanting it both ways.
District Court Chief Judge Ben Clyburn says he might retire because his salary of $149,552 demoralizes him. But Court of Appeals Judge Clayton Greene claims he can't afford to retire on his salary of $162,353. Which is it: driven to retirement (with a $99,751 pension for Clyburn) or unable to retire (with a $108,289 pension for Greene)?
Clyburn believes that failing to raise salaries "chip[s] away at the independence of the third branch of government." But Judge Katie O'Malley can make a political speech about a gay marriage bill pushed by her Chief Executive husband and call legislators "cowards."
The judges say they need higher pay to attract more lawyers from private practice, those who have the "well-rounded, diverse experience needed to be a good judge" (as paraphrased by marylandreporter.com.) Clyburn had only public law experience before becoming a judge, all of it in the Attorney General's Office. And top judge Robert Bell had been a lawyer for only six years before his first judicial appointment. Were they--are they now--unqualified for their jobs?
The argument that we need to increase pay to attract lawyers in private practice is so tiresome. Plenty of very qualified lawyers are attracted to the judiciary for a number of reasons. It's the application and nominating process that's so obnoxious and political.
And what's usually left out of the "attractiveness" argument are the pensions and very generous benefits. Judges work fewer hours, with nearly 7 weeks off, and get 12 state holidays and unlimited sick leave. Private attorneys who are billing by the hour can't afford that.
Judges also get two-thirds of an active judge's salary in pension benefits for 16 years of service, with a pro-rated pension for shorter service. If the proposed raises go through, judicial pensions will range from $104,200 for District Court judges to $140,300 for Judge Bell. A lawyer retiring from private practice, drawing 4% annually from a retirement account, would need $2.6-3.5 million saved for comparable pensions. And their savings aren't recession proof, like judicial pensions.
Maryland judges do contribute 6% to their pension system for 16 years, which they recoup in a couple of years. The JCC was asked to study the judge's pension system after other state employees suffered cuts last year, and came up with a single proposal: make judges pay 8%. (But only for new judges, which is patently unfair. The same amount should be imposed on all judges at the time their salaries are raised.)
So what should legislators do about judicial salaries? Forget all the extraneous, poorly documented reasons given by the judges and the JCC. Tie salaries to judicial responsibility, with an eye to state judges across the country.
District Court judges aren't given much responsibility at all, something I have written about before. (See The Greatest Part-time Job in the World, Part I, Part II, Part III. ) Under the current proposal Katie O'Malley would earn more than her governor-husband, and more than Circuit Court judges make now. That's just a joke.
Salary Recommendation: $135,000, a $7748 raise that would cover increased pension contributions (so their compensation doesn't go down) and $5000 to boot.
Circuit Court judges form the crux of the justice system. From family law to civil suits, to juvenile and criminal causes, these judges make the factual and legal rulings on the most serious cases. They manage dockets, make custody decisions, preside over jury trials, sentence violent criminals, decide whether juveniles should be tried as adults. Their decisions can be appealed, but only for error (unlike District Court judges, whose actions are wiped out by appeal), and their rulings are given great weight. They bear the toughest burden, and go face-to-face with advocates, plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses and jurors on a daily basis. We need Circuit Court judges of high competence and professional temperament.
Salary Recommendation: $162,000 a raise of $21,648. This would increase the pay gap with the District Court and narrow it between the Circuit Court and appellate courts.
Appellate courts (Court of Special Appeals and Court of Appeals.) These judges review outcomes, look for errors, interpret the law, and set the precedent that everyone must follow. Because they have the highest responsibility and can overrule lower courts, they get the highest pay. But their jobs are less difficult than working in a courtroom.
Salary Recommendation: $167,000 for the Court of Special Appeals, and $175,000 for the Court of Appeals (raises of $17,648 and $12,648 respectively.
These raises would put all judges (except District Court judges, who have no comparables) in the top ten of national judicial salaries. As for Chief Judge Bell, he's already at $181,353, #9 in the country and earning $19,000 more than his associates on the Court of Appeals, a far bigger gap than most states. $185,000 would put him at #8 and reduce the gap to a more appropriate $10,000.
I have one more suggestion for the District Court. Appoint Judge Katie O'Malley and Judge Thomas Miller III, son of Senate President "Mike" Miller, to co-chair a committee to design an overhaul to the District Court and give its judges real responsibility. These two judges have the political connections to make something happen, the same connections that got them appointed to the bench.
Posts
