This morning in the Washington Post, George Will turns his attention to the question of compensation for federal judges.

Will points to this report by the Chief Justice, which was issued by tradition on New Years Day, but “lost in the cacophony of political news.”

In his report, Chief Justice Roberts eloquently argues that federal judges are woefully underpaid. Pointing out that federal judges have been denied “the
same cost-of-living pay adjustments that other federal employees have received since 1989,” Roberts voices his support for a bill in Congress to address that sorry state of affairs. Then he delivers his coup-de-grace:

This salary restoration legislation is vital now that the denial of annual increases over the years has left federal trial judges—the backbone of our system of justice—earning about the same as (and in some cases less than) first-year lawyers at firms in major cities, where many of the judges are located.

I do not need to rehearse the compelling arguments in favor of this legislation. They have already been made by distinguished jurists, lawyers, and economists in congressional hearings, letters, and editorials—and seconded by a broad spectrum of commercial, governmental, and public interest organizations that appear as litigants before the courts. I simply ask once again for a moment’s reflection on how America would look in the absence of a skilled and independent Judiciary. Consider the critical role of our courts in preserving individual liberty, promoting commerce, protecting property, and ensuring that every person who appears in an American court can expect fair and impartial justice. The cost of this long overdue legislation—less than .004% of the annual federal budget—is miniscule in comparison to what is at stake.

To understand the truly horrifying disparity between compensation for private attorneys and federal judges, one only need read a few posts from David Lat’s “Nationwide Pay Raise Watch” at the indispensable Above the Law.

Will points out the danger: “The cost of not [addressing the pay disparity] will be a decrease in the quality of an increasingly important judiciary — and a change in its perspective. Fifty years ago, about 65 percent of the federal judiciary came from the private sector — from the practicing bar — and 35 percent from the public sector. Today 60 percent come from government jobs, less than 40 percent from private practice. This tends to produce a judiciary that is not only more important than ever but also is more of an extension of the bureaucracy than a check on it.”

As a matter of simple common sense, we all have an interest in ensuring our legal system is the best it can be. That means populating the bench with the brightest legal minds. But between low salaries and the meat grinder-like confirmation process, more than a few of the best lawyers make a habit of quietly turning down nominations to the federal bench.

That’s a reality that should disturb us all, and Congress first and foremost. Here’s hoping that the legislative branch can get its act together in the next month or two and make some progress on judicial compensation. That would be a good first step.

Cross posted at Confirm Them.