Legal News

With Larson?s Resignation, Judicial Pay Back in the News

By Ashby Jones

Let us open this post about judicial pay with a personal anecdote, if you’ll indulge us, LBers:

Back during our second and third years of law school, we landed several interviews for federal clerkships. One required us to buy a plane ticket, at our own expense, and fly a good distance to a mid-sized city and spring for a night in a hotel.

The day of the scheduled interview, we showed up in our (cheap) suit and (only) tie only to find the chambers deserted, save for a lonely secretary in sweat pants. She explained that the judge and the other clerks had departed early prior to a holiday weekend. She also explained that the judge had already hired his clerks for the following year. Really sorry for the mixup, she said, but there was nothing she could do.

Upon our return to campus, we sent off a firm but respectful letter to this judge, requesting that he reimburse us our expenses. About a week later, the judge called. He was apologetic, but declined to take us up on our offer. He explained that he couldn’t afford to reimburse us. He’d taken a “huge” paycut from a law firm relatively recently to join the federal bench, he told us, and was struggling to put his two daughters through college. Times were surprisingly tough, he said, his voice wavering.

While we had half a mind to tell him that it wasn’t like we, having already amassed a hefty amount in student loans, could afford to fly around the country to attend canceled interviews, we didn’t. He had flatly disarmed us with his slightly confessional tale of his financial straits, and we came away feeling sympathy for him, somehow. When, in a follow-up letter, he offered to reimburse us half, we almost felt guilty accepting.

Why do we bring this up? We were reminded of our little saga today while reading the news that a federal judge in California, Stephen G. Larson, was stepping down from the bench because he could no longer afford to stay on. Larson, who sits in Riverside, Calif., has a big family — seven children. Click here for the NLJ story; here for a post from Above the Law.

“The costs associated with raising our family are increasing significantly, while our salary remains stagnant and, in terms of purchasing power, is actually declining,” said Larson, in a prepared statement. “The short of it is that I know I must place my family’s interest, particularly the future of my children, ahead of my own fervent desire to remain a federal judge.”

Kashmir Hill and David Lat over at ATL ask the reasonable question, it seems to us:

Is $169,300 [the salary for federal district court judges] not enough for Larson to support his family, even with seven children? On the one hand, it's way more than the average American earns; on the other hand, it's way less than what Biglaw partners (or even many associates) earn.

LBers, what do you think? Of course, it’s unreasonable, in all likelihood, to expect that federal judges should make what the average BigLaw partner makes. But it also strikes us as unfortunate that the federal bench should lose Larson, who presided over the recent dispute between Mattel and MGA Entertainment over the rights to the Bratz doll (and, incidentally, a judge we’ve heard to be exceptionally hard-working) over financial issues. We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on September 17, 2009 (boomark / email).