Federal judges are the first to admit they have pretty good jobs. They are paid as much as $159,000 a year to make some of the most important decisions in American law, from death penalty cases to product liability claims. They receive generous pensions, invest in a government thrift plan and are appointed to their jobs for life.

        But for the past 10 years, those benefits have not been enough to keep judges from leaving the federal bench in record numbers.

        The problem, judges say, is money. A growing number of judges contend that judicial salaries now lag so far behind the salaries of lawyers in private practice that it's increasingly difficult to attract and retain the most qualified people.

        A report this year by the Federal Bar Association found that nearly 60 judges with lifetime appointments resigned or retired in the 1990s, compared with just five in the 1960s.

        Those departures, along with a painfully slow judicial confirmation process, are in part to blame for the large number of vacant seats on federal courts across the country, including the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

        The vacancies lead to bigger caseloads for the remaining judges and longer delays for plaintiffs and defendants who await decisions.

        Some top judges fear the exodus will grow worse — and the legal system will suffer — unless something is done to make salaries for the nation's 2,000 federal judges more competitive with salaries in the private sector.

        “Our system cannot long tolerate the regular loss of experienced, seasoned judges that is now occurring,” U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist warned in June, while testifying before a special commission that is studying the issue.

        His complaints generate little sympathy from members of Congress and their constituents, who generally consider a six-figure salary a good wage. They see the salary issue as a red herring, arguing that it has little to do with the vacancy problem. And they say that if judges want to quit public service for more money, no one should try to stop them.

        Rep. Steve Chabot, whose district is on the west side, says the value of a federal judgeship should be measured by more than just salary.

        “The pay levels in the judicial branch are sufficient,” said Mr. Chabot's spokesman, Gary Lindgren. “There are many qualified individuals who view it as an honor and a tremendous career opportunity to serve in the federal judiciary.”

        Mr. Chabot's opinion matters because he and his colleagues in Congress must sign off on every pay raise. Under the law, the judges' pay is linked to congressional pay.

        And since members of Congress are historically reluctant to approve pay raises for themselves — never a popular move with voters — the judges have been denied several promised cost-of-living increases.

        Congress has voted against the increases four times since 1994, which translates into about $15,000 in lost annual salary for judges.

        Judges say that's the kind of trend that gets them thinking about other career opportunities.

        “We all go into this thinking it's a career, our final job,” said Judge Boyce Martin, the chief judge of the Sixth Circuit. “But after five years or so you start having second thoughts.”

        Seeking competitive salaries

        Judge Martin, who has served on the court since 1979, said he's happy with his job and isn't looking for sympathy from Americans, most of whom earn far less than he does.

        His concerns are more practical. Fair or not, he said, the salaries of federal judges must be measured by the salaries they could get elsewhere.

        When Judge Martin joined the court 23 years ago, his pay was comparable to that of partners in large law firms, deans of law schools and other top jobs in the legal profession.

        Today, however, the judges lag behind. Deans at top law schools now make as much as $325,000, and some senior professors make more than $200,000. According to American Lawyer magazine, the mean salary for partners at the largest law firms now stands at about $800,000.

        Judge Martin said those numbers add up to a problem for the federal courts: If private firms offer top lawyers three or four times what the courts offer, then the top lawyers will go to private firms.

        “You want people who decide these important issues to be the best and the brightest,” Judge Martin said.

        “If you deny them assets they can get elsewhere, you're going to get what you pay for.”

        He said he's already seen quality judicial candidates bow out because of money. Some of those candidates called him for advice after senators approached them about a possible nomination.

        “They'd think about it and say, "Look, I've got children to raise. I can't give up what I'm doing.”' Judge Martin said. “I've had a lot of those conversations.”

        He said it's hard to argue with their logic. Several of his former law clerks, some just a few years out of law school, already earn more than he does.

        A recent issue of The Third Branch, the newsletter of the federal courts, included testimonials from former federal judges who have recently quit. Joe Kendall, a former district judge in Texas, said money was an issue for him because he has two college-bound children and another with special needs.

        “I will never have a job that's better or more satisfying,” he said. “But I need to do what I'm doing. I have financial concerns.”

        The number of judges who actually leave the bench is still relatively small compared to the total number of judges. But the 60 who left in the 1990s represent the largest number to do so in the history of the federal courts.

        “We're not saying people are leaving the bench in droves,” said Dick Carrelli, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in Washington. “But the trend is a little disturbing.”

        Defecting to private sector

        A more immediate concern is the loss of “senior judges,” those who retire but continue to handle large caseloads.

        These are judges who return to work even though they could stay home and collect a pension equal to their last annual salary. They receive some financial benefits by returning — they stay eligible for pay raises, for example — but not much else.

        Senior judges are increasingly important because many courts are short on regular judges.

        Seven of 16 seats at the Sixth Circuit are open, largely because political bickering in Congress has delayed the confirmation of nominees.

        But lately, senior judges have been in short supply. Many have instead chosen to accept lucrative jobs in private practice, where they can collect their pension as well as a new, higher salary.

        At least five potential senior judges in the Sixth Circuit have chosen private practice in the past few years.

        “If we start losing them,” Mr. Carrelli said, “then obviously the system is going to be hurting.”

        The most recent defection to the private sector is former Sixth Circuit Judge Nathaniel Jones, who had worked as a senior judge for several years.

        “If compensation was in line with what federal judges should be receiving, I would have continued to serve on the court,” Mr. Jones said.

        “I know it's hard for many persons to generate any sympathy (for judges),” he said. “But when you realize what's involved in reaching this point and what the market is, it's different.”

        Mr. Jones said the financial considerations are even greater for younger lawyers who have years of work ahead of them. If money remains an issue, he said, potential judges may start to see the federal bench as a stepping stone rather than a career, or they may rule it out altogether.

        Judge Martin said the problem could be solved if Congress restores the cost of living increases it has rejected in the past 15 years or so.

        He said that probably would raise salaries to about $200,000, making them competitive enough to sustain a quality federal bench.

        But Mr. Chabot and others opposed to pay increases say more money is not the answer. After all, members of Congress make roughly the same salaries as federal judges, and they are not clamoring for raises.

        “The judicial and legislative branches are equal,” Mr. Lindgren said. “It's not surprising you would have similar levels of pay.”

        He said public service usually comes with some trade-offs, and money is one of them.

Federal judges say pay falls short
Chabot against light rail tax hike
McGuffey museum rededicated
Round-trip race all wet; but spirits were willing
He's there for homeless kids
I-75 upgrade will have to wait
Program helps addicts recover
Solutions for Rybolt Road to be studied
Despite rain, area still needs water
Eligibility in judge's race before board
Four Bridges urged to back buffers
Tristate A.M. Report
Coast Guard volunteers to patrol Herrington Lake
Kentucky's suicide rate is higher than national average
Mother of quads happy to have gay couple raising kids
Poll: N.Ky. backs gambling at tracks
Prisoner escapes from Jefferson County Jail
Bronson: Airport security
Howard: Some good news
You Asked For It