"International companies will shy away from doing business in Ireland"

More ink is spilled by politicos in the legal profession on the meme that the independence of the profession will be destroyed if the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 is passed. Today's newspapers contain claims that "cross border trade would suffer and international companies will shy away from doing business in Ireland if the legal profession was under government control." The paragraph above that quote suggests that Ireland will become like China if the Bill is passed. The obvious difficulty with that analogy - China continues to attract enviable levels of foreign investment - seems to have escaped notice.
The Independent's report also contains the laughable claim that there could be litigation in the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights over provisions in the Bill.

Shatter's "Arrogance" and The Eight Former AGs

Much has been written about Alan Shatter's dismissal of the eight AGs' opposition to the constitutional referendum proposals on cutting judicial pay and Oireachtas inquiries ("nonsense" and "simply wrong"). These pieces - mostly attacking the Minister (e.g. The Independent: "Alan Shatter, the star of the 'No' campaign, whose arrogance contributed to the defeat of the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum ...") - imply that the intervention by the AGs is owed some deference. That is, their status confers more weight to their views than those expressed by others. Some have even made references to the fact that Mr. Shatter is a "family law solicitor" setting it up as a marker of contrast to the AGs - as if that puts him at a disadvantage in the expertise stakes and therefore entitles their opinions to greater weight.

I am a bit bemused by this deference and by the severe condemnation of the Minister for labelling the former AGs' views as "nonsense." Why should the opinions of a group of eight former AGs be given any more weight than lay opinion? Note that I am not referring to the substance of the arguments advanced by the AGs at this time. My question is limited to whether their status as former AGs entitles their opinions to superior weight. This question might be posed in respect of the privilege granted to most kinds of expert opinion. However, there is a key difference here: expert privilege is usually earned in some form - e.g., a Ph.D. or some credential that is the product of sustained activity in a technical discipline. The AGs are in a slightly different position - they were appointed politically, and earned expertise of the same sort cannot be automatically assumed.

Setting aside this problem and assuming that they are experts, are their opinions entitled to any deference by virtue of status? It would be a mistake to grant anyone such deference. Experts can also be wrong. If the opinions of putative experts are taken at face value, with sole reliance upon their status, there is inadequate examination of the substantive arguments. Expertise becomes a device to chill debate by insulating opinions from scrutiny. It denies the same privileges to non-experts and seeks to denigrate and ultimately to exclude. We also erroneously substitute examination of the substantive arguments for a superficial evaluation of the purported expertise. To be sure, expertise might be rationally privileged when the issue is one of technical complexity and where the average person is unable to arrive at a sound decision following reasonable effort. However, the questions submitted by the referenda only involve political choices - not technical issues - and are not of a level of complexity that is beyond the average voter. The trend in modern societies is for elites to seek to transform simple political choices into complex technical arguments to exert disproportionate influence over the democratic process and advance their interests. Coevally, we might be seeing the substitution of deference in Ireland in favour of experts and away from institutions traditionally accorded such privilege - such as the Church. Whatever the reason, such deference is antithetical to a republic founded on equality, serves to promote herd-like behaviour, stymies robust debate, and fosters error.

It is a pity that the media blithely deferred to the opinions of the eight former AGs. Their opinions should be examined for substance - except that there is not much of it beyond urging rejection of the proposals upon pleas about independence etc. One assumes that the average voter was able to see this and did not place much importance to the AGs' views. Even if their views had any influence, it is likely that just as many - if not more - voters chose to vote against their advice, as did in favour, thereby not affecting the net result. This conclusion - admittedly, impressionistic and not empirically sound - is supported by the many hostile letters published in the major newspapers following the AGs' intervention. It is also consistent with the massive majority in favour of cutting judicial pay despite the AGs opposing the proposal. Equally, the defeat of the Oireachtas inquiries proposal might not have been influenced by their letter; rather it was probably becaused the government did not do enough to explain the issue to the public.

In any event, the defeat of the inquiries proposal is not a big deal. It was always going to be a poor mechanism for getting to the root of the banking crisis - one of the justifications offered by the government for adopting it. As I've argued before, here, here and here, an independent commission would be better suited to that task. For other types of matters of public importance, the Abbeylara case does not prevent Parliament from conducting inquiries, as I've argued here. This referendum was entirely unnecessary and the government need not have followed the ultra-conservative legal advice that canvassed for spending public money in this way.

Eoin Daly on Judges' Pay Referendum

Eoin Daly (DCU) has a nice piece in the Irish Times today cutting through a lot of the drivel advanced against the pay-cut referendum:
It is normal, in a republic, to expect that the general and equal applicability of legislation should be the norm ...
Popular vigilance, along with law, plays a role in the perpetuation of our democratic constitutional system. This is overlooked by lawyers’ cliched charge of “populism”, which itself betrays a culture of elitist ambivalence to the world of politics.

[The judiciary's] use of an official forum to comment on the merits of a referendum proposal represented an unprecedented invasion of a sphere which under our constitutional system, is reserved to the people and their elected representatives alone though the amendment process. The judiciary has no power or no democratic right to intervene in this process, but worse, the content of the intervention itself was ill-judged because it potentially undermined the public perception of judges as impartial and motivated by the rule of law rather than self-interest.

Judges are normally loath to intervene in questions they perceive as “political”, which made it so unfortunate that the lone amendment on which they officially commented was that which directly affected their personal interests. Yet this extraordinary intervention provoked hardly any reproach in legal and academic circles.

Worth reading in full.

Irish Times Op-ed on Judges' Pay Referendum

The latest salvo against the referendum in the Irish Times today claims that adopting the proposed amendment would "deliver[] a blow to Irish democracy."

I am a bit bemused. The point of a referendum is to give the public a chance to participate directly using the power of the ballot. Does that not promote democracy? 

Reflections on the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011

The Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011, has been greeted with predictable opposition by those representing the profession. Below are some of my thoughts on their arguments.
1. The Bill erodes the independence of the legal profession
This argument assumes that the legal profession is somehow independent and operates on some lofty claim. The truth is that no jurisdiction that I am aware of has guaranteed absolute independence to the profession and freed it from all regulation. There are a variety of models of regulation across the world but none of them are designed to guarantee absolute independence or to create a position of special privilege for lawyers.

The idea of independence is to ensure that lawyers are able to dispense legal advice to clients free of pressure from the state, to protect the rule of law, to protect against retaliation for pursuing claims against the state, and to support the administration of justice. These objectives are guided by the need for a system that serves the public interest. While different countries have adopted a range of regulatory models for the profession, in no country has the supervisory function been free of state interference. Many jurisdictions have vested this power in the courts - which are also an organ of the state. Judges are appointed by the government in these jurisdictions and vesting supervisory power in their hands has not compromised independence in any meaningful way. Yet some continue to make tall claims - the Independent claims today that "Minister ... will directly appoint seven of the 11 members ...[t]his undermines not just the independence of the legal profession, but undermines access to justice itself. The new regime of direct control of the legal profession is unparalleled anywhere in Western Europe."

The government appoints judges. Does anyone seriously believe that Ireland does not have an independent judiciary or a legal system based on the rule of law? Irish judges are widely applauded for their independence and excellence and to jump to the conclusion that appointment by the Minister "undermines access to justice" is rather silly.

The Bill expressly mandates independence: section 9(3) says that the Authority "shall be independent in the performance of its functions." Further section 9(4)(e) requires it to "encourag[e] an independent, strong and effective legal profession," and 9(5)(a)(1) states that legal professionals shall "act with independence and integrity."  They are also required to "comply with duties rightfully owed to the court." In addition, other provisions contain detailed rules designed to ensure independence. Section 11 - containing bars on serving as a member of the Authority if elected to Parliament, section 14 - disclosure of conflicts of interest, etc are examples.

2. The Bill gives too much power to the Minister
This ultimately depends on practice and it is perfectly possible that the minister will defer to the views of the Authority. It is also misleading to suggest that the profession has been shut out of the appointments process - 4 out of the 11 members of the Authority shall be nominated by them. 6 out of the 16 members of the disciplinary tribunal shall be nominated by them. This is quite a lot of power to the profession. There are however some areas for concern. For e.g. the strategic plans have to be approved by the minister and there might be some pressure on the codes of practice. These could be improved through further clarifications.

3. The disciplinary process is flawed
The Bill provides a detailed set of rules on lawyer discipline. This is not at odds with what is prevalent in other jurisdictions. It is typical to have non-lawyers on disciplinary hearing panels, although the requirement for the majority to be comprised of lay persons poses challenges of expertise. The decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal can be appealed to the High Court.

4. The Bill will make legal services more costly
There is no evidence to support this assertion. Indeed many of the reforms are expressly geared at removing structural barriers to competition and costs ought to come down. It would have been preferable for the Bill to merge the professions now rather than waiting for a report and wasting two years. The justifications offered for the duality of the professions are weak and there is nothing new to be gained from another report. Allowing direct access to barristers, permitting them to take up regular employment and to provide legal advice to their employer, permission to form firms, etc., should all work to drive down costs.
I have some concerns about the requirement for annual statements from accountants; this seems unnecessary and costly. I am also not persuaded about the need for mandatory indemnity insurance. A disclosure based regime would have been a superior alternative because it would facilitate contractual choice and keep costs down. I am also not persuaded about the need to create a new profession of conveyancer.

In conclusion, there is much to like in the Bill and it is a step in the right direction. The profession should see it as an opportunity to improve access to justice, provide better service to clients at lower cost and to regain public trust.

Change in Wording on Proposed Amendment on Judges' Pay Cut?

The Independent reports that senior judges have managed to secure a "crucial change" to the draft proposed amendment ensuring that this pay cut is a one-off and that future cuts must be "proportionate". The article seems to be implying that there has to be parity between pay cuts imposed on other public servants and those imposed in the future on judges. This change in language was reportedly procured based on legal advice from an "eminent senior counsel."

Much expense and time could have been saved by relying instead upon the same advice offered on this not-so-eminent blog in a post on July 27, 2011.

Latest Irish Times Op-ed on Judges' Pay Referendum

More ink continues to be spilled on the judges' pay referendum, mostly rehashing arguments (sans any acknowledgement) made on this blog and by other bloggers like Paul MacMahon and Fiona deLondras, but with differing amounts of spin. Today's piece, by Estelle Feldman, correctly notes that the proposed amendment is badly drafted and is susceptible to misinterpretation. However, I am not too sure about her claim that a pay cut could be imposed on just one judge. The very use of the word "judges" in the amendment ought to militate against such a reading. Her point about selective pay cuts for a judge or judges who rule against the government in a lawsuit is not supported and does not follow from the argument about not defining "class." A selective, punitive pay cut would probably be illegal and no sensible government would take such a big legal risk. Setting aside the legality of a pay cut for just one judge or a targeted group of judges, the severe political cost likely to be incurred by any politician brave enough to go in that direction makes such a threat highly unlikely. Moreover, there is no evidence of such a practice being employed in any comparable jurisdiction. So, this argument is a distraction from the real issue about poor drafting.

The curious thing in the entire debate is that both sides seem to be beating about the bush rather than offering their strongest arguments. If, as the government claims, the purpose of the pay cut is to make Irish judges share in the pain, and to eliminate preferential treatment, why draft the amendment with undefined classes and no assurance of parity in the amount of any pay cut across the public sector? Why not offer a simple amendment imposing the same reductions in pay as are imposed by law on all public servants? This would defang all arguments about judicial independence being compromised etc. The government is lucky that it is not losing the messaging battle as a consequence of its strange drafting strategy - opinion poll evidence seems to indicate strong public support for the pay cut. Consider the other side: why this leap into judicial independence, when the easier case is that the amendment is terribly drafted, confusing, likely to yield unintended outcomes, etc? It will take a miracle to convince the Irish voter that judicial independence would be compromised by the adoption of the amendment. Opponents of the amendment might have better luck arguing that judges are not overpaid, that pay has to reflect expertise and opportunity costs in order to retain and attract the best candidates for judicial office. They might point to recent proposals for pay hikes in jurisdictions like New York to support that point. But one suspects that this is a hard case to make because Irish judges are not poorly paid. They are probably paid just about right and that is a difficult point to sell. Hence the distraction about judicial independence.

Some of my older posts on the pay referendum are here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Irish Times: "Legal System Provides No Guarantee of Justice"

The newspaper has an opinion piece today that applies a broad tar brush to the legal system, with some wild claims. If the point is that the system needs reform - which one can readily accept - it has been undermined by some pretty bizarre argumentation. A detailed rebuttal would be too long for a blog post so I'll focus on just a few points. The piece starts off with an attack on legislative drafting followed by the assertion that many laws survive constitutional scrutiny only because people cannot afford to challenge them. This is a tall claim given the deference granted by the courts to the legislative branch in constitutional challenges. Moreover, the connection between poor drafting - I doubt if lawyers in any jurisdiction have ever come across the perfectly drafted law - and constitutionality is not substantiated. There is also no evidence offered for the success rate of constitutional challenges, when people can "afford" to bring them. If this is indeed high, it might support the point that the legal system is doing its job. One does not doubt the need for good drafting but it is overstated in this context.

Then the piece attacks "lenient sentences" awarded by the courts and claims that the community has been "demoralised" as a result. The author claims that those released early are committing violent acts and victims of serious crime are "so badly treated." Where is the data for recidivism for violent crimes to support this claim? One study between 2001-2004 found that recidivism in Ireland was highest for property crimes. Sex crimes - which typically atract the highest amount of popular outrage - had much lower recidivism rates. Popular opinion is typically in favour of draconian sentences but what is the evidence that Irish judges typically impose lenient sentences for violent crimes? Lenient compared to UK judges? US judges? One would have expected some evidence to support these sorts of claims, but once again all we get is a bald assertion. Jail is extremely expensive and the evidence indicates that Irish prisons are overcrowded. If violent criminals are indeed being treated leniently, evidence must be collected and resources ought to be directed at remedying the problem. Knee-jerk statements unsupported by evidence are not very helpful.

Next is an attack on wigs and gowns - valid. And an attack on the DPP's lack of accountability. These are sound criticisms but again there is no real substance beyond two statements buried in the middle of the piece. 

The piece also shows inefficiencies in the civil justice system caused by the separation between Solicitors and Barristers with a putative client "Shiela." There is little doubt that the separation of the profession imposes unnecessary transaction costs and is inefficient. That point could have been made more effectively without the examples provided in the piece. Many of those examples - tardiness by barristers taking silk, etc - do not do much for the argument as they only speak to individual instances of lack of professionalism.

In conclusion, yet another opportunity to make the case for reforming the legal system goes to waste.

Reforming the Legal Profession: "You're not going to argue with a doctor when your pants are down around your ankles"

The Minister for Enterprise, Mr Richard Bruton, has been taking some bold steps since he assumed office. In that vein, he continues to take aim at the legal profession, which he believes is acting like a cartel. Some of his recent views, via an article in the Irish Independent: ... Ireland's competitiveness was being damaged by a legal "cartel", but he noted that while "people were not going into a room" together to set up prices, "custom and practice had grown up in a manner that was very comfortable" for our over-paid lawyers.

He added that the current "pricing relationship" involving the hiring of senior counsel, junior counsel and solicitors had "no place" in a modern, competitive economy.

Mr Bruton also reiterated a recent warning to the legal profession that there would have to be fundamental structural changes in how they operated if we were to create "a competitive market structure".

Unlike other industries such as supermarkets, "simply asking people to shop around is not realistic" because seeing a barrister is "like visiting a hospital consultant.

I doubt if the analogy between doctors and barristers works. At the highest level - where fees are in the millions - the clients are typically very commercially sophisticated, and possess the ability to choose between lawyers. To be sure, the small size of this jurisdiction might constrain choice somewhat, but I don't think there is much need for paternalistic intervention at the top level. The problem is more at the bottom level where routine legal work is over-priced. Drafting documents, arguing small claims etc ought to be less expensive, reflecting the level of expertise, time, and skill involved. This is where the ordinary consumer finds himself at a difficulty when he needs legal services. The legal profession in most jurisdictions has been unwilling to tackle this problem. Predictably, other providers have jumped into the market - as in the U.S. - and are offering cheaper services for drafting wills, leases etc. It is only a matter of time before similar services become more widely prevalent.

I wonder if Mr Bruton will go whole hog and strike at the separation between Barristers and Solicitors. Intuitively, removing this artificial and archaic divide ought to have some effect on the cost of legal services, while enhancing consumer choice and competition. It would also be helpful if the government were to modernise the court system - for e.g. by providing electronic public access to filings, requiring written arguments which are publicly accessible, etc - while it is tackling the legal profession.

Can't Pay Fines in Ireland? Don't Worry, There's No Space in Jail

Law abiding citizens ought to be outraged by reports about a significant number of offenders refusing to pay fines and facing no adverse consequences for such disregard for their legal obligations. What's worse, to escape scrutiny, the system is resorting to skullduggery to conceal the true numbers of those turned away from jail for not paying their fines by not characterising them as being on "temporary release". These individuals are being equated - wrongly - with those who have served their jail terms.

As the Irish Times reports, "a “front-door mechanism” was created last year. The system ensures that most fine defaulters arriving at the gates of a jail are turned away because there is no room for them inside.

Their fines are expunged on the spot because they are technically regarded as having served a short prison term in lieu of their fine."

Why should people pay fines if there are no consequences for not paying them? To be sure, many will pay out of a sense of legal or moral obligation. But many pay fines only because of fear of other secondary sanctions for refusal to pay. If these sanctions fail to bite, such individuals will ignore the primary sanction. To add insult to injury, reports indicate that these fines are expunged. This makes no sense. Why not retain them on the records as unpaid debts that could be garnished from wages etc when possible?

The reason provided for turning defaulters away from jail - lack of space - is not a justification for absolving them of all punishment. Why not impose community service orders if there is no space in jail? Or other sanctions like taking away driving licences (if the fines were for automobile related offences)? There are plenty of punishment avenues other than incarceration and the state ought to explore them in these instances.

Turning a blind eye to those who refuse to honour their legal obligations only sends the wrong signal to society and ultimately undermines respect for the rule of law. One can only expect more disregard for legal rules if this policy continues.

Dog in the Witness Box to Aid Rape Victim: Unfair to the Accused?

Does the presence of a comfort dog in the witness box during testimony sway the jury? Can a cute dog trigger feelings of sympathy and make the witness more credible? Is the presence of the dog a violation of the accused's right to a fair trial? These questions are being raised in New York following a trial of a father for raping his teenaged daughter. The father was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in jail. He is appealing. From the NY Times:

Rosie, the first judicially approved courtroom dog in New York, was in the witness box here nuzzling a 15-year-old girl who was testifying that her father had raped and impregnated her. Rosie sat by the teenager’s feet. At particularly bad moments, she leaned in. 

Prosecutors here noted that she is also in the vanguard of a growing trial trend: in Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana and some other states in the last few years, courts have allowed such trained dogs to offer children and other vulnerable witnesses nuzzling solace in front of juries.

Some comfort dogs have supposedly appeared in over 50 trials. While it is true that the dog is only doing what it is trained to do - offer comfort when the witness shows signs of stress - it is possible that juries may be swayed. This is quite a complicated issue and the appeals court decision ought to make for interesting reading.

Table Showing Impact on Judges' Pay if Referendum is Adopted

Here's a table showing the impact of the proposed pay cut for judges, if the referendum is passed:

Source: Dept. of Justice website.

New Draft Article for Judges' Pay Cut Referendum

Here's the proposed new draft article 35(5) via the Department of Justice's website:

35.5.1° The remuneration of judges shall not be reduced during their continuance in office save in accordance with this section.

35.5.2° The remuneration of judges is subject to the imposition of taxes, levies or other charges that are imposed by law on persons generally or persons belonging to a particular class.

35.5.3° Where, before or after the enactment into law of this section, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of persons belonging to classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money and such law states that those reductions are in the public interest, provision may also be made by law to make reductions to the remuneration of judges.

Paul MacMahon has an excellent post analysing the proposed draft. I agree with him that the drafting is terrible. It is no better than the previous version, which I wrote about here. It creates potential for unnecessary confusion with the use of the word "classes." I've no idea why this word is necessary: would it make any difference if "belonging to classes of persons" is deleted?  It is also problematic that the pay cut for judges does not necessarily have to be of the same percentage or euro amount as that imposed on other employees. If the raison d'etre for the pay cut is that judges ought to be treated like other employees, what happened to parity?

I'm not sure I agree with Paul's point about the need for an independent council to ensure judicial independence. Such an agency comprising of the great and the good is likely to be appointed by the government in any case. If independence is compromised because pay is set directly by the government how is it not compromised by an agency thereof?

Some of my previous posts on the judges' pay issue are here, here, and here. 

Chief Justice Denham Declines Pay Raise

The Independent is reporting that Chief Justice Susan Denham has declined the hike in salary that comes with her elevation and will stay at her current salary: "Supreme Court judges earn €257,872 and Mrs Justice Denham will maintain her current salary despite her promotion.

It is understood she has, in line with other superior court judges, already taken a voluntary pay cut in lieu of the controversial 2009 public sector pension levy."

A voluntary pay cut by all judges in line with that imposed on public sector employees would have allowed the judiciary to claim the moral highground and protected the institution from attack. There is still time. The proposed referendum could be withdrawn as moot.

Tom O'Malley's excellent piece on challenges facing the system is also a must read for those with any interest in these issues.

Lord Justice Sullivan on Wayne Rooney and Football

"It's a wonder he's got time to play football, he's making so many personal appearances," said Lord Justice Sullivan. "For Nike, for Coca-Cola. It's a wonder he's got time to practice."

Christopher Jeans QC, for sports management firm Proactive, replied: "Bearing in mind footballers train in the morning only, it's not what the man in the street would consider an onerous obligation."

The QC should try his hand at professional football since it is not very onerous! More at the Independent here.

Justice Denham on Judges' Pay Cuts, New Court of Appeal

The new Chief Justice, Susan Denham, has issued a statement revealing her views on a number of pressing issues. On the proposed referendum to cut pay: “Judge[s] are not, nor have they ever been, opposed to playing their part in sharing the financial pain required of everyone in this difficult time, [w]hile we can be thankful that our children and grandchildren are not going off to war, and that famine is not stalking the land, we are in the midst of a financial storm which has shaken families throughout the country, and imposed enormous stresses upon individuals, families and communities.” Note the choice of words - not opposed, rather than support.

She voiced her support for a court of appeal: “With the growth in the number and complexity of cases coming before the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal, the State would be well served by a Court of Appeal; and we need to develop a 21st century infrastructure for the judiciary of Ireland.” It would be huge step in the right direction if the new chief prioritises all aspects of a 21st century court infrastructure while setting up a court of appeal. Requiring written briefs before oral arguments, electronic access to these briefs for the public, getting rid of the costumes ...

On judicial restraint: "In a world of instant communication and commentary the concept of silence may seem unusual, but it is an inherent part of our democratic tripartite system of government. Indeed, in these difficult times the need for an institution of independence and thoughtfulness, with an obligation to maintain the rule of law, is greater than ever,"

She also supported the establishment of a judicial council. It promises to be an interesting tenure.

New Jersey Judge Sues Govt. for Pension Cut: Violates Judicial Independence

Making claims eerily similar to those advanced by judges in Ireland in a recent memorandum to the government, a New Jersey state judge has sued the state government over cuts to his pension. His argument: the pension cuts threaten the "independence" of the judiciary. Here's more from the WSJ:

Judge Paul DePascale, who sits on the Superior Court bench in Hudson County, filed a lawsuit in state court Thursday challenging the laws signed last month by Gov. Chris Christie.

Judges, who must retire at age 70, are now required to contribute 12% of their salary, up from 3%. The state Constitution says that judicial salaries "shall not be diminished during their term of appointment." The lawsuit also said that an earlier draft of the legislation cited the constitutional requirement.

It's at least the second lawsuit filed challenging the cuts, which require current workers to contribute more of their salaries to receive the same pensions.

The state has reacted in predictable fashion, with Governor Christie's press secretary bluntly stating: "Of all classes of New Jersey state employees, judges of the Superior Court have enjoyed the lowest pension contribution rate and received the richest pension benefits. Judge DePascale should probably just say thank you and look forward to a comfortable retirement."

More from the New Jersey Newsroom:

DePascale said the deductions will increase "steadily and dramatically’’ over the next seven years. He said his pension deductions would increase $14,849.94 by 2017, when he would be paying $18,137.38 into the pension system.

The benefits’ increase would make the health care contribution for judges go from $2,475 annually to up to $5,230.86, depending on the type of coverage.

Some of my previous posts on the judges' pay issue are here, here, and here.

94% of Voters Support Pay Cut for Judges in Referendum

A new Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll finds overwhelming public support for cutting pay for judges in the forthcoming referendum:

Asked how they will vote in the referendum in the autumn, 94 per cent of voters say they will vote Yes and just 3 per cent say they will vote No, with only 3 per cent having no opinion.

If this view is mirrored in the referendum the outcome will be one of the highest Yes votes in a constitutional referendum in the history of the State.

Poll results can be skewed by how the question is framed; in this instance it is not surprising that there is virtually unanimous support for cutting pay. After all, it is tempting to make grand gestures when other people are paying the price, especially when those people are perceived as privileged elites.

First Woman Chief Justice of Ireland

Via the Irish Times:
The Government has appointed Mrs Justice Susan Denham as Chief Justice of Ireland.
Mrs. Justice Denham was educated at Alexandra College, Dublin; Trinity College; King’s Inns and Columbia University, New York. She was called to the Bar in 1971 and became a Senior Counsel in 1987.
Appointed a Judge of the High Court in 1991, in December 1992 she was the first woman appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court.

Congratulations to Justice Denham!

Sanitation Dept Employees Earn More than Judges - in New York

I blogged previously about complaints from New York state judges about inadequate pay. Now the NYT has an article about the work of the Judicial Compensation Commission - set up last year to deal with the issue. The commission has been receiving submissions from various parties about appropriate pay levels for judges. Amongst these is one from "a coalition of 12 judges’ organizations put[ing] forth 50 facts justifying a big raise, including salaries in New York City’s Sanitation Department: 50 employees in the department earn more than almost all New York judges and nearly as much as the state’s chief judge, Jonathan Lippman."

The current salary for judges is at about $136,000 - lower than Irish levels. The article notes criticism for any increase in pay given the state of New York's economy, echoing similar concerns about affordability in Ireland, although the attempt here is to cut pay, not to increase it.