Judicial Compensation in New York: A National Perspective, Report

4 JUDICIAL COMPENSATION IN NEW YORK: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
I.
THE STANDARD
NCSC IS AN INDEPENDENT NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION dedicated to improving the
administration of justice through leadership and service to state courts. NCSC provides
research, information and consulting services to state court leaders on key national policy
issues. NCSC has monitored and analyzed state judicial salary trends since 1974. 1
On April 9, 2007, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye asked NCSC to undertake a study of
judicial compensation trends in New York State and offer recommendations before the
close of the State’s legislative session in late June 2007. 2
In general, NCSC recommends that states establish and maintain processes for
determining judicial compensation that meet the objectives of equity, regularity, objectivity,
and separation from politics. These four objectives emerged from the most comprehensive
study conducted of state judicial compensation practices, undertaken by
NCSC with funding from a private foundation. 3 They represent the practices, distilled
from long national experience, best calculated to promote judicial independence and
maintain the proper balance of powers among the three branches of government.
Equity: Careers in public service demand sacrifice, and those who join the bench
must be ready to forego the more lucrative compensation available in the private sector.
Nonetheless, judicial salaries should be broadly comparable to the remuneration
received by attorneys taking similar career paths and by other public servants having
comparable responsibility, training and experience.
Regularity: The real value of judicial compensation should be maintained through
adjustments that respond to inflation so that the salary a judge accepts upon joining the
bench is not eroded to the detriment of his or her family. Equity is rarely possible in the
absence of regular reviews that respond to cost-of-living increases.
Objectivity: Judicial compensation should be set and revised by reference to an
agreed-upon set of objective criteria that can be easily evaluated by the public. The
process also should be transparent to the public.
Separation From Politics: Decisions on judicial compensation should not be a basis
for expressing Legislative or Executive Branch dissatisfaction with specific court decisions.
Nor should judicial pay be adversely affected because of disagreement between
the Legislative and Executive Branches over policy issues unrelated to the compensation
of public officers. Failure to raise judicial compensation or provide cost-of-living adjustments
is an inappropriate method for holding judiciaries accountable.
1 NCSC’s resources on judicial compensation are on-line at http://www.ncsconline.org/d_kis/salary_ survey/home.asp.
2 NCSC analyzed salary data for general jurisdiction trial court judges around the country, salary trends for comparable
legal and nonlegal professional positions in both the public and private sectors, and various cost-of-living indicators
such as the Consumer Price Index. NCSC also reviewed New York’s judicial compensation history since the 1970s.
3 The study was funded by the Cades Foundation to examine the mechanisms being used nationally to set judicial salary
levels. The specific purpose was to propose a model for Hawaii, but the underlying research was national in scope, drew
general conclusions, and recommended “best approaches.” Bob Tobin & Kent Pankey, Setting Judicial Salaries in
Hawaii: Model Based on Comparative National Study for the Cades Foundation. Denver: Court Consulting Services,
National Center for State Courts (January 2003)