Federal Judges Get Serious on Pushing Agenda
(Including Raises) Through Congress

By Carrie Levine
The National Law Journal
New York Lawyer
July 20, 2009

It turns out that confirmation isn't the only thing judges want from Congress.

Federal judges are hoping a new set of lobbyists with strong Democratic ties will be able to push their agenda on Capitol Hill, including laying the groundwork for what judges view as a long-overdue salary increase.

The Federal Judges Association, together with one group representing U.S. magistrate judges and another representing U.S. bankruptcy judges, hired Patton Boggs partner Jonathan Yarowsky, a former general counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, as of April 1, according to a lobbying disclosure form filed earlier this month. The judges' groups also hired Steve Elmendorf of Elmendorf Strategies, a one-time aide to then-House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt. Also on the team are four other Elmendorf lobbyists with Democratic ties, including Robert Cogorno, a former staffer for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

The Senate is spending this week on its highest-profile task related to the judicial branch: confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. But Congress also controls the federal purse strings, which means members control decisions about the judicial branch's budget and resources, including salaries, benefits and staff. Judges also warily watch for legislation they say could infringe on the judiciary's independence, such as appointment of an inspector general.

"We do have some legislative things that are important to us, and as they become important to us, we are going to direct our Washington representatives to act on our behalf," said Chief Judge Wiley Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Daniel is president of the Federal Judges Association, which he said represents more than 900 federal district and appeals court judges. "This is broader than pay. It includes anything that will impact our economy and independence."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Mummert III, president of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association, said his organization joined with the others because it needs eyes and ears in Washington. "It's nice that we're all working together on projects," he said. "I think it makes for a better judiciary." Mummert said the magistrates' association has more than 500 members.

Judge Gregg Zive, president of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, did not return a call seeking comment. John Napier, an independent lobbyist based in Washington, D.C., and South Carolina who has also been representing the Federal Magistrate Judges Association, said he will be coordinating with the newly hired lobbying team.

MISSING RAISES

The judges' groups have otherwise been without a lobbyist since the first quarter of 2008, when they ended their relationship with the Livingston Group and former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.). The choice of the new lobbyists, with their heavily Democratic ties, reflects the political shifts in Washington, where Democrats now control both houses of Congress as well as the White House.

Daniel, the Federal Judges Association president, said the groups had hired Livingston for a targeted push on a judicial salary increase. Records show the groups paid Livingston $140,000 in 2007. Committees in both houses signed off on raises last year, but the raises didn't pass. Daniel said that, in a special meeting in December 2008, the group decided to look for comprehensive representation to address "all the needs of judges."

The subject of pay remains especially fraught. Earlier this year in his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said a pay increase is long overdue, and cost of living increases "have been unfairly denied!" Still, an increase is unlikely to come this year, with the economy faltering and members of Congress conscious of heightened public scrutiny.

"What can happen this year, I think, is really a function of the overall economy and factors out of our control," Daniel said. "I think we want to continue to have appropriate conversations with the leaders."

BENEFITS PUSH

So far, the new lobbying team has seen some success. The judges' groups strongly back a bill that would give judges another chance to enroll in a benefits plan known as the Judicial Survivors Annuities System, which pays an annuity to any dependents after a judge's death. Currently, the only opportunity judges have to elect to participate in the plan is when they are confirmed to the bench or promoted. The bill would create a one-time six-month enrollment window for current judges — essentially a second chance. David Sellers, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said the plan is funded by member contributions, and the bill doesn't require any new government spending.

The Senate passed the bill earlier this month, though it still must go through the House.

Judges are also watching appropriations bills that include money for the court system and related agencies. Daniel said that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts typically takes the lead on budget discussions with Congress but that Yarowsky and Elmendorf have already met with James Duff, the director of the office, and will coordinate efforts. Duff, formerly a partner at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, represented the Federal Judges Association there.

Daniel said the judges will depend on the lobbyists to keep them abreast of legislation on which they need to weigh in. For instance, he said, Congress had previously considered appointing an inspector general for the judiciary, and the judges objected, arguing that it would compromise judicial independence.

"I view [the lobbyists] as more our watchdogs to ensure that we are familiar with what we need to be familiar with," he said.

QUIET OUTREACH

Yarowsky said he doesn't expect a big push on specific bills this year. Rather, he and Elmendorf plan to use this year for "a quiet outreach campaign."

"This is an opportunity to make some bridges to help people better understand and respect what they do and not just do it with a few champions," Yarowsky said. He added, "There's no need to erect a concrete wall between the branches. There can be a firm wall, but it can permit positive interaction. That is a big goal."

The lobbying team also wants to draw attention to judges' workloads, he said, especially when it comes to the civil docket.

Daniel sees the lobbyists as filling a void. "We just think it's important to have quality persons speaking for us," he said, "where we can't speak for ourselves."