By Mark David Blum, Esq.

Greetings from the Badlands of the Onondaga County Bar Association. I do not speak for the majority of members of the Bar and indeed, only speak for myself. With high confidence, however, I believe my words here reflect the opinions of many others.

In yesterday’s newspaper, David Pellow, President of the Onondaga County Bar Association presented the opinion of the Board and the Bar that the State should indeed move toward increasing judicial salaries.

To the President and Board of the Onondaga County Bar Association, I say it was the wrong move to adopt a public position in support of a massive increase in the costs of the State’s judicial overhead. While doing so may endear and enamor the day-to-day lawyer who appears before one of the affected judges, the cost of our standing in the eyes of the public has been tainted.

There is not an attorney in this town or indeed a civilian who has had any experience with the civil or criminal justice system who could not identify tons of waste of time, resources, and personnel. Our voices are not listened to and only what is seen as the closed circle of political ‘old boys’ make changes for their convenience. At the same time, people stand around in hallways for hours and calendars are getting more cluttered, our Chief Administrative Judge is about to spend MILLIONS of dollars to raise the roof of the Court House and make it all shiny and pretty and looking new again. A poor person or someone who does not have a cell phone cannot find a payphone in the court house to make a phone call, but there is plenty of funding to create new patronage jobs. Somebody should raise the roof; that’s for sure.

As a lawyer and member of the Bar, I appreciate efforts to suck up to the judiciary. As a taxpayer and attorney who has to function in that same system, I am offended at the effort to raise judicial salaries without first attacking waste and demanding greater productivity. If the Courts want to better pay their employees, then we as consumers deserve better. Allow me to use the “F” bombs – Fundamental and Fairness – that is the issue.

Even more offensive to me is the rationale given to support a raise in pay.

I invite any sitting judge or justice at any level of court to show that not only are they qualified for a law school deanship or wall street partnership, but actually have the choice to accept such a position if their judicial salaries are not raised. Yes, law school professors and big shot big city lawyers make more in salary that do judges. But what smugness drives a person to think that just because they don the robe, they are suddenly of the tenure deserving of pay of the top rungs of society?

Also not mentioned in part of what I call ‘deferred pay’. This is the lifelong full pension and retirement, full family medical and dental, and incredible benefits that most people can only dream about. Making “only” a hundred something thousand dollars a year is one thing; but when you calculate into that the million or two in retirement benefits, worry about underpaid judges evaporates.

There might be more credibility to the argument that judges deserve to be paid at the same level as professors and wall streeters IF if the State’s system of selecting Judges were to be fair. Unlike the Bar Association’s unqualified unanimous vote of support for higher salaries, that same Bar Association cannot agree on how to change the way Judges are selected in the State. This seemingly inconsistent position demonstrates the point being made herein. Namely, there is a split of opinion in the Bar whether judges should be elected or selected. To me, it’s a no brainer; the current system locks out those who are not politically in favor and only rewards those most loyal to party. No member of the Bar that I know fully agrees that every person sitting on the bench at any level of court deserves that job. Many good men and women serve as great judges. I respect and admire so many of them for the hard work and conscientious effort they make. Their hearts and intelligence and integrity are beyond question. But, in the back of our minds, there always remains the question whether they are indeed the most qualified person for the job or are they sitting there thanks to years of quid pro quo. In the more than 15 years I have been a trial attorney, not once has my opinion been asked about a potential candidate. Has yours?

Being a judge is not a right; it is a civic duty. When someone takes job, it should not be for the remuneration, but for the honor of filling that robe and a place in history.

With all due respect, the Courts are the last line of defense against a corrupt and evil government. Congress legislates the will of the majority. The Executive implements the laws. But, the Courts are the guardian of the individual and the rights and privileges accorded him in the Constitution. Apparently, in their minds, the judges that currently sit on that hallowed bench see themselves as civil servants. They are not. They are constitutional officers who, if they cannot do the job for the mere pittance of a starting salary of $136,700 a year in Onondaga County, should get the hell out of the way for those whose goals and ideals are loftier than a paycheck. “Greed” is not the hallmark of Justice.

I respectfully ask my Bar Association to reconsider its’ position on this matter. The public’s confidence in us as attorneys demands no less. After all, if we do not stand up to demand a better product for the consumer, who will?