January 23rd, 2007

Simpson Thacher First Year Associates To Be Paid Like Federal Judges

New York’s legal marketplace is hitting a new milestone: Paying fresh-faced, 20-something, first year associates more than federal judges.

Rookie lawyers at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett will be paid a base salary of $160,000 before bonus, according to a New York Law Journal article today. Bonuses for first years start at $30,000/year:

The New York firm’s move, announced internally Monday, comes less than a year after an earlier round of salary increases boosted first-year salaries in the city to $145,000 from the $125,000 that had been standard for several years prior.

By contrast, federal judges start at $162,500 (no bonus, sorry), the same as members of Congress.

New York’s Supreme Court justices (our trial courts, not the top court) start at $136,700.

If judges can do so well in the private sector, then we need to increase the incentives to keep good ones from leaving the bench. It is time we brought judicial salaries more into line with the marketplace.

January 19th, 2007

New York Judiciary Set For More Bad News

As former Brooklyn Democratic leader and Assemblyman Clarence Norman, Jr. goes on trial next week for the fourth time, New York’s judiciary steels itself for a spate of bad press. Why is he going on trial? From today’s New York Sun:

The trial will focus on Norman’s alleged demand that two judicial candidates spend their campaign funds at consulting and printing businesses that he approved. These demands were allegedly made over a table at the Park Plaza Restaurant, a well-known diner near the courthouses in Brooklyn.

The issues this trial presents are likely to appeal to an audience wider than the usual courthouse crowd. The trial is of particular interest this year, as lawmakers in Albany are set to choose a system for selecting state trial judges.

With the state Senate expected to throw its support behind a bill requiring all state judges to go through an open primary, the upcoming trial could be used as an argument for proponents of an appointment system. It is expected to demonstrate how judicial candidates, like all political candidates, often come to depend a great deal on party organizations and donors when campaigning to win a primary.
…

The investigation by Brooklyn’s district attorney, Charles Hynes, dates back to at least 2002 and began following the arrest of judge on bribery charges. While Mr. Hynes has charged several other judges with crimes, he has yet to prove that judgeships are bought and sold in Brooklyn — the original goal he set for himself. Norman, who had the reputation as a kingmaker of Brooklyn judges, has been at the center of his inquiry.

I discussed the possibility of indictments yesterday for the sale of Brooklyn judgeships.

These problems in Brooklyn, of course, are part of the reason that Gov. Eliot Spitzer has sought judicial reform , as I have noted a few times since his inauguration.

Stay tuned for the tabloid headlines…

January 18th, 2007

How Much for that Brooklyn Judgeship?

A damning article in the Village Voice, The Sales of Justice, reports that District Attorney Charles Hynes will soon indict people regarding the sale of a judgeship in New York’s King County (Brooklyn).

The price? $50,000 – $70,000 for a seat with the robes.

Brooklyn has been the site of prior judicial scandals. If these allegations are meritorious, it will be the fourth Brooklyn judge that D.A. Hynes has prosecuted. As someone who tries cases in that courthouse, I can only hope this story turns up empty, but I don’t think that is what will happen.

It also reminds me that just a few short weeks ago new Gov. Eliot Spitzer said this at his inaugeral about politics and judges:

I will also submit a second constitutional amendment that will take
the politics out of the selection of judges and implement a merit appointment process.

The shame of it all is that the conscientious and ethical judges will be tainted by the bad apples.

January 12th, 2007

New York Near Deal on Judicial Selections?

I had previously written how Gov. Spitzer was pushing judiciary reforms that included restructuring and consolidating New York’s court system, and creating a new screening committee to pick judges that was not partisan based.

Now, according to Capitol Confidential, he may be near a deal on reforming the way our trial court judges are selected. As per Elizabeth Benjamin, this would entail:

a so-called “down-the-middle” proposal that doesn’t completely do away with the traditional convention system of selecting state Supreme Court candidates (ruled unconstitutional last January) but modifies it to be more open.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer pushed this issue to the front burner when he declared on the day of his first State of the State speech that he wouldn’t support “anything that has a closed conventions structure,” insisting “there must be a way to primary onto the ballot.”

You can read more on the subject at the Brennan Center for Justice’s blog at ReformNY, or by Jason Boog at Judicial Reports.

[Update – 2/12/07 – New York Trial Justices Oppose Role In Chief Judge’s New Screening Committees]

January 5th, 2007

Did New York Courts Exceed their Authority With New Advertisng Rules?

I posted earlier today regarding the new ethics rules regulating attorney advertising in New York, and the prohibition from soliciting clients for 30 days. These Disciplinary Rules that were created by the presiding judges of each of the four appellate divisions not only apply to plaintiffs lawyers but to defendants as well. And to insurance companies. But can the courts legally do that? Part (a) is for plaintiffs, and part (b) is for defendants:

DR 7-111 (22 NYCRR 1200.41-a) Communication After Incidents Involving Personal Injury or Wrongful Death

(a) In the event of an incident involving potential claims for personal injury or wrongful death, no unsolicited communication shall be made to an individual injured in the incident or to a family member or legal representative of such an individual, by a lawyer or law firm, or by any associate, agent, employee or other representative of a lawyer or law firm, seeking to represent the injured individual or legal representative thereof in potential litigation or in a proceeding arising out of the incident before the 30th day after the date of the incident, unless a filing must be made within 30 days of the incident as a legal prerequisite to the particular claim, in which case no unsolicited communication shall be made before the 15th day after the date of the incident.

(b) This provision limiting contact with an injured individual or the legal representative theoreof applies as well to lawyers or law firms or any associate, agent, employee or other representative of a lawyer or law firm who represent actual or potential defendants or entities that may defend and/or indemnify said defendants.

And so an interesting question on the new rules has immediately arisen: Can the New York courts regulate what the insurance companies do?