Osler's Razor

That ?seems like sort of an odd reason. I would think that's a similar salary to what he'd make as a law professor. Maybe a little less . . . who knows.

There was somebody else in the news recently who resigned because he wasn't making enough money, and it was a surprise . . . a politician, I think. Who was that? It brought up the whole question of how much money one needs.
 

Its unlikely to be about the money. There are three groups of people vis money: those who haven't enough to adequately care for themselves or their families, those who can afford their own Gulfstream jets, and everyone else. Barring some bizarre spending habits, Judge Cassell is clearly in the "everyone else" group.

More likely his self-talk goes like this: "This isn't enough money to compensate me for {all the horrible things I really dislike in the job}."

It is more socially desirable to claim that the money's the problem than to explain why a job (to which so many aspire, and with so much prestige) really makes you miserable.
 

What do people think of this?

Umm, I'd like to have his seat on the bench.
 

$165,000 sounds like a lot - but put some perspective on it. That is what a first year associate attorney makes in Dallas at a firm like Baker Botts. Just think what a partner makes there in a year. I know that many aspire to be federal judges, but come on, you have to admit that the "paltry" salary has some effect on who really wants the job.

For all the headaches that come with being a federal district judge, 165k just may not be worth it like anonymous 3:33 said. I'm sure quality of life as a law prof is better than a fed dist judge.
 

Isn't it weird that "resigning" means to leave your job, while "re-signing" means you have signed on for another term?
 

Sounds greedy or more likely pretextual.
 

Must be tough to be a federal judge, what with having your own staff, including clerks to handle the tedious bits, and all that awful job security. What do judges who resign get paid, BTW? I suspect he s still getting paid something.
 

Disclaimer: I'm one of "those" law firm associates, i.e. make as much as the job I covet.

But, I wonder if part of the federal judicial salary problem has to do with the age of some of the folks coming on the bench these days. I know that for the two judges for whom I clerked, their appointment to the federal bench was a true capstone: both had risen to the highest ranks of politics in their respective states, both had more experience practicing law than I could ever say grace over, and both had children at least mostly out the door when they took the federal bench.

It seems that in the rush to maintain ideological purity - which some think comes from naming younger people - leads to financial pressure that might not come with an older nominee.
 

I know nothing about Judge Cassell, but I know you can live very well in Salt Lake City making $165K a year. In fact, I'd be very happy with that kind of money.

I worry sometimes that money is too great a motivator within the legal profession. Chief Justice Roberts seems to think the "low" salary paid to federal judges is keeping the best and brightest off the bench because they can make millions in private practice. But do we really want those who make their decisions primarily based on economic gain on the bench?

Federal judges have the capacity to do so much good. And in my opinion, they should be motivated by altruistic desires like justice and mercy with an eye fixed on the future impact of their current decisions.

Making big money is nice, but making a big difference is much better.
 

I think that since salary is typically an indication of what the market dictates a particular "job" is worth, $165K is a little bit ridiculous for an Article III judge. I am sure it certainly seems like a lot of money to some of us law students who are making nothing, but when compared with the overall legal profession, it is, as someone else has already noted, basically entry level pay at a big firm in a big city.

Personally, I think there need to ne more federal district judges, and their pay should be at least double what the market pays entry level associates at big city firms. Of course, since that takes an act of Congress . . .
 

It'll take an act of congress which the public would never approve.

But are there really problems attracting people to an article 3 job? Sure, I've heard a lot of people say that these judges could be making a lot more money in private practice. But so could professors — yet, we have no shortage of people who wanna be professors. Are there statistics to this end, though? Do we have anything like, "Of the X number of article 3 jobs offered, Y% of people turned it down?"
 

A job's compensation (or incentive) is often derived from more than the immediate salary. Prestige, connections, work-life balance, and future earning potential are three (often interconnected) other incentives for taking a job.

In this case, he may be able to move into a job with a more favorable work-life balance (such as a law professor), with a much higher income with comparable prestige (such as a partner in a mega-firm), or both (such as a law professor working as a lobbyist on the side).
 

With a seat on the bench comes a good deal of isolation from both practitioners and civilians with whom you might want to spend a good deal of time. Going from the bench to law school doesn't seem to me to be a huge difference in money, but there might be a huge difference in the identity of your colleagues. Maybe he just likes the people at the law school.