ILNews

Judges, prosecutors to get pay raises

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has approved a 1.3 percent pay increase for judges and prosecutors. The chief justice’s approval of judicial pay raises is required under the budget passed by the Indiana Legislature this year.

House Enrolled Act 1001, Section 265 says that any adjustment to pay during the new biennium can only take effect if it is also approved by the chief justice once the governor directs that cost-of-living or performance-based increases should occur.

In December 2010, Gov. Mitch Daniels granted a pay increase of 1.3 percent to government employees after a two-year pay freeze. In the order released Thursday, Chief Justice Shepard said, “After two years of frozen salaries, it is altogether right that the pay raise afforded to the state’s Executive Branch employees in January should be given to judges and prosecutors and their families this coming July.”

The chief justice said court revenue is expected to be “largely adequate” to cover the increase.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • very important
    Adequate pay raises for judicial officers and prosecutors are vitally important. They are the single greatest tool to prevent corruption. Disparities between what public sector lawyers make and the bigwigs at the megafirms only invites trouble. lets not even get started comparing these important public officers' pay to the pro-ballers and the bankers. Interesting under our glorious socalled capitalist system how the spoils are divided, isnt it.

    Come to think of it, we should raise the judges and prosecutors salaries by 10% and fund it with a surtax on banks. How about that. They can just borrow it from the Federal Reserve for nearly zero percent interest anyways.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT