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 wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT