pulicords
01-04-2009, 08:19 AM
The last few days, I've been talking to a friend who's a judge, about the recent civil action: "Judicial Watch vs Los Angeles Superior Courts." The case has got me worried for him and for our county's justice system.
If you aren't already aware of it, "Judicial Watch" recently won a civil action (filed by ex-DDA Sterling Norris) challenging the practice of Los Angeles County adding approximately $46,000.00 to the salary of each judge within the L.A. Superior Court system. "JW" claimed this "bump in pay" was an unlawful expense to the taxpayers that resulted in unfair judgments from the bench in cases involving the County that were tried by judges who received pay from the same entity. While the Court of Appeal and State Supreme Courts ruled the "conflict of interest" didn't exist, they did rule that County of Los Angeles had no right to pay the judges money in addition to that provided by the state. "Why (the court ruled) should L.A. judges make more money than judges in every other county?"
What both courts apparently ignored, was the fact that the original legislation which authorized the "takeover" of payments and benefits from the counties (by the state) allowed those counties that wished to provide increased pay and benefits to do so. For the last eight years, the County of Los Angeles has exercised that option. Judges who were employed here prior to the legislation and those who were hired after were making approximately $220,000.00 per year, but will now have their pay cut by $46,000.00 annually. $174,000.00 per year might seem like a lot to a police officer, but let's face it, for a good attorney it isn't much! What kind of judges can we expect to retain, when well trained attorneys can start at a much higher pay scale immediately upon passing the bar exam? As if things weren't bad enough in this county with the poor quality of prosecutors often encountered, now we'll have to worry even more about the quality of the judges!
My friend received his college degree and JD from "ivy league" universities. Obviously he had heavy bills to pay for this training and the quality of his grades were such that finding private employment in a good law firm would have been an easy thing for him to do. Instead of "going for the big bucks", my friend elected to join the LADA's office out of a sense of service to our community. He did an outstanding job there, was recognized for his efforts by the governor and was appointed as a judge several years after the legislation that combined the municipal and superior courts in L.A. County (to save money) and authorized the state to pay the judges, handle their benefit plan and retirement program, while allowing the county to provide a "bonus" to keep their pay at the previous level.
Now, years after his appointment, after purchasing a new home and starting a family, he faces a hefty percentage of his annual income being cut and the inability to meet his financial obligations. As much as I worry about him personally, my greater fear is for our ability to have quality justices in our criminal and civil courtrooms. I know from experience that my friend is an outstanding attorney and can easily make millions going into private practice, but what about the loss to the rest of us in Los Angeles County? It's a da*# shame we can't keep good Deputy District Attorneys working in the courtrooms and that so many leave to work "for the dark side." Now we're faced with the possible loss of 100 or more of our judges in the near future, and what will the quality of their replacements be?
In a county where it's not unusual for police officers (with only high school diplomas or GEDs) to make more than $100,000.00 annually (with OT and benefits included) is it too much to pay our judges $200,000.00? I recognize these are hard times, but consider the major criminal and civil issues decided by judges in this county and the amount of money paid to attorneys who defend well to do criminal defendants or sue agencies and officers on a contingency basis! If our judges don't measure up to the standards we've come to expect in our local courts, will they remain as free from corruption as they have in the past (compared to other jurisdictions like say: Chicago)? Will they be as knowledgeable as they are now about issues like search warrants, search and seizure, officers' use of force or collective bargaining rights that affect us all in law enforcement?
Our profession (law enforcement) in this region is provided better pay and benefits than seen in many other areas of the country. In exchange, more is expected from us and we're held to a higher standard. Our knowledge, abilities, ethics and judgment are all expected to be professional and beyond reproach. How high of a standard can we come to expect from judges who will routinely make far less income than most of the trial attorneys who argue the cases before them? Although I've had doubts about some judges' competence throughout my career, the individuals in question were a very small, distinct minority. Will this remain so in the future, or will officers face unprofessional conduct, inexperience and outright corruption not just from the other side of counsel's table, but from the bench too? :confused:
If you aren't already aware of it, "Judicial Watch" recently won a civil action (filed by ex-DDA Sterling Norris) challenging the practice of Los Angeles County adding approximately $46,000.00 to the salary of each judge within the L.A. Superior Court system. "JW" claimed this "bump in pay" was an unlawful expense to the taxpayers that resulted in unfair judgments from the bench in cases involving the County that were tried by judges who received pay from the same entity. While the Court of Appeal and State Supreme Courts ruled the "conflict of interest" didn't exist, they did rule that County of Los Angeles had no right to pay the judges money in addition to that provided by the state. "Why (the court ruled) should L.A. judges make more money than judges in every other county?"
What both courts apparently ignored, was the fact that the original legislation which authorized the "takeover" of payments and benefits from the counties (by the state) allowed those counties that wished to provide increased pay and benefits to do so. For the last eight years, the County of Los Angeles has exercised that option. Judges who were employed here prior to the legislation and those who were hired after were making approximately $220,000.00 per year, but will now have their pay cut by $46,000.00 annually. $174,000.00 per year might seem like a lot to a police officer, but let's face it, for a good attorney it isn't much! What kind of judges can we expect to retain, when well trained attorneys can start at a much higher pay scale immediately upon passing the bar exam? As if things weren't bad enough in this county with the poor quality of prosecutors often encountered, now we'll have to worry even more about the quality of the judges!
My friend received his college degree and JD from "ivy league" universities. Obviously he had heavy bills to pay for this training and the quality of his grades were such that finding private employment in a good law firm would have been an easy thing for him to do. Instead of "going for the big bucks", my friend elected to join the LADA's office out of a sense of service to our community. He did an outstanding job there, was recognized for his efforts by the governor and was appointed as a judge several years after the legislation that combined the municipal and superior courts in L.A. County (to save money) and authorized the state to pay the judges, handle their benefit plan and retirement program, while allowing the county to provide a "bonus" to keep their pay at the previous level.
Now, years after his appointment, after purchasing a new home and starting a family, he faces a hefty percentage of his annual income being cut and the inability to meet his financial obligations. As much as I worry about him personally, my greater fear is for our ability to have quality justices in our criminal and civil courtrooms. I know from experience that my friend is an outstanding attorney and can easily make millions going into private practice, but what about the loss to the rest of us in Los Angeles County? It's a da*# shame we can't keep good Deputy District Attorneys working in the courtrooms and that so many leave to work "for the dark side." Now we're faced with the possible loss of 100 or more of our judges in the near future, and what will the quality of their replacements be?
In a county where it's not unusual for police officers (with only high school diplomas or GEDs) to make more than $100,000.00 annually (with OT and benefits included) is it too much to pay our judges $200,000.00? I recognize these are hard times, but consider the major criminal and civil issues decided by judges in this county and the amount of money paid to attorneys who defend well to do criminal defendants or sue agencies and officers on a contingency basis! If our judges don't measure up to the standards we've come to expect in our local courts, will they remain as free from corruption as they have in the past (compared to other jurisdictions like say: Chicago)? Will they be as knowledgeable as they are now about issues like search warrants, search and seizure, officers' use of force or collective bargaining rights that affect us all in law enforcement?
Our profession (law enforcement) in this region is provided better pay and benefits than seen in many other areas of the country. In exchange, more is expected from us and we're held to a higher standard. Our knowledge, abilities, ethics and judgment are all expected to be professional and beyond reproach. How high of a standard can we come to expect from judges who will routinely make far less income than most of the trial attorneys who argue the cases before them? Although I've had doubts about some judges' competence throughout my career, the individuals in question were a very small, distinct minority. Will this remain so in the future, or will officers face unprofessional conduct, inexperience and outright corruption not just from the other side of counsel's table, but from the bench too? :confused: