There have been a few diaries about the request by Chief Justice Roberts to raise the pay of the Federal judiciary. There was some criticism as well as a few who conceded that the pay of Federal judges has not kept pace.
In Los Angeles there is a local story about the more than 400 judges of the Superior Court about which no one is writing a thing. This is a "pigs at the trough" story that most will understand. The local judges in Los Angeles County actually earn more than Chief Justice Roberts.
In 1997, the California Legislature decided that all trial courts would be funded by the state alone and passed a statute saying so. The California Constitution already provided that the "compensation" of Judges was a matter for the Legislature to decide.
After the 1997 enactment, Los Angeles County started or continued to pay judges within this county something they called "local judicial benefits". In 2007, the salary of a Superior Court Judge in California was just under $172,000. (It has since gone up to around $179,000.) The "local judicial benefits" paid to Los Angeles judges was just over $46,000, which they could take as all cash. Indeed, they could even pay into a 401(k), get the sum matched by the county, and then withdraw all the money, albeit with Federal tax consequences. The "local judicial benefits" raised the pay of local judges by about 27%.
A lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative group that files lawsuits challenging government practices. Judicial Watch lost in the trial court but prevailed on appeal. (See Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008).) This was decided last October by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, in San Diego, since all Los Angeles judges had a conflict of interest. The Court of Appeal ruled that the "local judicial benefits" program was illegal. (I have read the opinion and reviewed the law it cites. This was not rocket science and should have been plain to everyone, let alone trial court judges.)
There was an immediate uproar. The Los Angeles County Bar Association, the District Attorney, and the Public Defender all filed briefs with the Court of Appeal asking it to reconsider its opinion. They were denied. The County filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, asking that body to exercise its discretion and hear the case. That was denied on December 23. According to a piece in the Wednesday, December 24, Metropolitan News (a local legal newspaper), the Judges themselves have now hired Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher to represent them in an attempt to intervene in the case. (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is not cheap. I wonder where the funds are coming from to pay for the judges' lawyers.)
There are two things we must remember here: (1) California judges at all levels are paid more than their counterparts in every other state and in the Federal judiciary, and (2) Los Angeles judges make more (with the "local judicial benefits") than the Justices of the California Supreme Court.
The County Bar, the DA, and the PD all argued that the extra pay was necessary to attract and keep "quality" judges on the bench. In its Petition for Review, the County argued that Deputy DA's at the highest pay grades made more than judges and would be unlikely to apply for judgeships without the extra remuneration. The former contention lacks proof; the latter contention merits only a "So What?"
When I was in law school (early 1970's), the California courts were one of the two best in the nation. The other was New Jersey. Since then, California's courts have slid into one of the most politicized in the nation. Prof. Gerald Uelmen of Santa Clara Law School has written that when Rose Bird was removed as Chief Justice by the electorate in 1986 after a nasty Republican campaign, the entire California judiciary lost its collective spine.
The point about the pay of Deputy District Attorneys is telling, though, because the Los Angeles County bench is overloaded with former prosecutors and other government attorneys. Indeed, it is very difficult to get appointed to or elected to the court without having been a prosecutor. One might argue that these former civil servants have little or no real world experience. In other jurisdictions, prominent lawyers are often recruited for the bench, taking huge pay cuts compared to their private practices. In California every new list of newly-appointed judges is laden with prosecutors, who view the bench as a next civil service step.
It seems everyone wants a raise, whether rightful or not.