Editorial: Stem the hemorrhaging

Friday, Sept. 28, 2007 | 7:30 a.m.

A 48-year-old federal judge in Utah, Paul Cassell, last week resigned his lifetime appointment to the bench. According to USA Today, the father of three children said his salary factored into his decision.

The paper reported that Cassell is among a record number of federal judges who are resigning because their salaries are no longer competitive.

Since 2000, the paper reported, 51 federal judges have resigned and 17 more are expected to leave before the end of 2009.

Although federal judges at the district level earn $165,200 a year, plus generous federal benefits, lawyers fresh from passing their bar exams can make that much or more if they land positions with large metropolitan firms.

That's a decent starting salary in a big city, but federal judges generally are in midcareer, and find raising a family on that amount, say in New York or Los Angeles, is difficult. Most federal judges, no matter where they live or at what level they serve (U.S. Supreme Court justices make around $200,000), know of lawyers with less experience making far more money in the private sector or even in government.

These two reasons are most frequently cited for raising the compensation of federal judges: Higher salaries will attract lawyers who are among the best and the brightest. And judges will be more apt to maintain their independence - they won't be tempted, as a job-hunter would be, to tailor their decisions to please prospective employers.

The whole reasoning behind lifetime appointments - and salaries then thought to be sufficiently high - was to attract top people and prevent prejudicial rulings.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., introduced a bill in July to boost the pay of federal judges. Under this bipartisan legislation, U.S. District Court judges would receive $247,800, Appeals Court judges would receive $262,700 and the salaries of Supreme Court justices and the chief justice would rise, respectively, to $304,500 and $318,200.

In our view, these are not unreasonable increases for people who fill such crucial roles. We support Leahy's bill.