How Much Money Does A Federal Judge Make

U.S. Judges Earn Considerably More Than Salary

June 5, 1989

Credit... The New York Times Archives

See the article in its original context from
June 5, 1989

Section B , Page

6Buy Reprints

TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.

About the Archive

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

Almost all Federal judges have outside income, a majority have six-figure investment portfolios and many make more money off the bench than on it, according to their Government financial reports.

A survey by The Associated Press of 935 financial disclosure reports for 1987, the most recent year for which a complete set was available, found that all but 15 of the judges had outside income. More than half reported extra earnings from $16,624 to $39,500.

The Federal judges, whose salaries are from $89,500 to $115,000, have pressed Congress for a 30 percent raise after a bill that would have given them an increase was defeated in Congress earlier this year.

The 935 financial disclosure reports came from 702 active judges and 233 senior judges who worked at least 60 days in 1987. Of the 935 judges, 715 were Federal district judges, whose salaries were $89,500; 211 were on the Court of Appeals and earned $95,000, and eight were associate Supreme Court justices, whose salaries were $110,000. The Chief Justice of the United States, William H. Rehnquist, earned $115,000.

For 10 years, financial disclosure forms have been required of Federal officials, including judges. Considerable attention has been focused on the reports by members of Congress and the Cabinet, but those of judges have received less scrutiny.

The financial disclosure reports showed other details about the earnings of judges:

* Four hundred judges reported extra earnings, including that from teaching law and speaking fees or book royalties, but most such income came from pensions from earlier jobs or settlements with law firms where they had worked.

* At least 555 judges and perhaps as many as 723 had investment assets worth more than $100,000 after their debts are subtracted. The median for net investments was $140,000 to $350,000. The assets generally reflected family money or substantial incomes before and after appointment to the bench.

* At least 62, and as many as 176, of the judges were millionaires. They included Judge Gerhard A. Gesell, who presided over the trial of Oliver L. North and whose holdings, with a net value of $1,023,013 to $1,330,003, included stock and a 358-acre Virginia farm. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the Supreme Court appeared to be the only millionaire on the court. She put the net value of her investments at $730,016 to $1,126,002.

Most information in the reports examined by The Associated Press was listed in wide numerical ranges rather than in exact amounts. But some judges reported figures more exactly than they were required to do, which, along with averaging, resulted in some of the precise amounts found. Reports Are Incomplete

The reports did not include the judges' houses or holdings that were not for investment purposes and so did not give a complete look at their wealth. Also, judges were allowed to value property at the purchase price, which was sometimes decades old. The reports did not include bank accounts under $5,000, assets under $1,000, cars and personal property.

Liabilities exempt from reporting included home mortgages, debts to relatives and revolving charge accounts with balances under $10,000.

Leaders of the Federal judiciary, including Chief Justice Rehnquist, have said the judges were underpaid and noted that their salaries lagged behind those of top corporate lawyers.

''I think judges are entitled to a pay raise,'' said Judge Robert McWilliams of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Colorado. ''Judges' salaries, rather than being geared to the income of the average taxpayer, should be geared to the average of practicing lawyers.'' Earning More Than U.S. Median

Yet in comparison to most Americans, or even to most American lawyers, judges were in comfortable circumstances.

The median wage- and salary-earner in the United States was paid $14,733 in 1987, meaning half earned more than that and half earned less. But at least 507 of the judges made more than the national median off the bench.

Median income for all of America's 707,000 lawyers and judges was $45,069, according to reports by the Bureau of Census. At least 207, and perhaps as many as 426, of the judges made more than that outside the courtroom.

The reports put the median 1987 overall income for a Federal judge at $108,018 to $130,300.

Judge Myron Bright, who is semiretired but worked with the Court of Appeals in Fargo, N.D., received a $95,000 judicial salary and more than $43,530 from teaching and speaking in 1987. His income was more than the combined salaries of North Dakota's Chief Justice and Attorney General. Income Not a Lure

''On an actual income basis, I think I'm making less than I did when I first got on the bench,'' said Judge Bright. ''But I'm not complaining.'' Income was not the lure for many of the lawyers who accepted a lifetime appointment as judge. ''Being a Federal judge is like getting the brass ring on a merry-go-round,'' said Judge Avern Cohn of Michigan, who was formerly a prominent lawyer. ''I was looking for other ways to prove myself professionally.''

Judge Richard Cudahy of Chicago, scion of a Milwaukee family with interests in meatpacking, appeared to be the wealthiest Federal judge. The 63-year-old appellate jurist was worth $8.4 million to $16.1 million. 'Serious Threat' to Judiciary

Earlier this year, Congress defeated a 51 percent raise proposed for judges, Congress and some members of the executive branch. Chief Justice Rehnquist then appealed for raises to avert what he called ''the most serious threat to the future of the judiciary.''

President Bush responded by proposing a 25 percent increase for the judges and some limits on outside income. The judges have asked for 30 percent, with annual cost-of-living adjustments and no limits on outside income.

The judges said that without the raise, inflation will force many of them from the bench and into higher-paying jobs at law firms.

A survey by The American Lawyer magazine found that profits for each partner in 1987 at the 100 law firms with the most revenue were $155,000 to $1.4 million. Those firms' 10,098 partners, concentrated primarily in a handful of cities, represented 1.5 percent of all lawyers in America.