Working class judges

Boston University Law Review

Volumn 88, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 829-842

  Zorn, Christopher ^a   Henderson, William D ^b,c   Czarnezki, Jason J ^d,e,f,g  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION   (United States)

^d Vermont Law School ^*

^e DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 46749138722     PISSN: 00068047     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (50)

1. Baker provides a thorough sampling of the various positions on this issue m one of his footnotes so we decline to repeat them here. Scott Baker, Should We Pay Federal Circuit Judges More?, 88 B.U. L. REV. 63, 65 n.2 (2008).
2. Id. at 66.
3. Id. at 84-85.
4. Id. at 112.
5. Id. at 91.
6. Id. at 89.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 91.
9. The use of multiplicative interaction terms to model conditional relationships among covariates in a regression framework has been known for more than five decades. See D.R. Saunders, Moderator Variables in Prediction, 16 EDUC. & PSYCHOL. MEASUREMENT 209 (1956).
10. For more extensive treatments of multiplicative interactions in regression models, see CINDY D. KAM & ROBERT J. FRANZESE, JR., MODELING AND INTERPRETING INTERACTIVE HYPOTHESES IN REGRESSION AZNALYSIS (2007);
11. Robert J. Friedrich, In Defense of Multiplicative Terms in Multiple Regression Equations, 26 AM. J. POL. SCI. 797, 797-99 (1982);
12. and Thomas Brambor, William R. Clark & Matt Golder, Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses, 14 POL. ANALYSIS 63, 63-65 (2006).
13. See, e.g., Chief Justice John G. Roberts, 2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, 39 THE THIRD BRANCH: NEWSLETTER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS (Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Wash. D.C), Jan. 2007, at 3-4, available at http://www.supremecourtus. gov/publicinfo/year-end/2006year-endreport.pdf (reviewing statistics on the reduced number of federal judges from private practice and asserting that "[i]t changes the nature of the federal judiciary when judges are no longer drawn from among the best lawyers in the practicing bar").
14. See Baker, supra note 2, at 65 nn.2-5 (collecting public statements from judges, law school deans, the ABA, and corporate counsel on the negative impact of law judicial pay).
15. Id. at 74.
16. i = 1)/∂X)), while we present coefficient estimates (ßs). The practical relevance of this distinction is slight.
17. Additionally, the effect in Model 2 of Table 5 is significant at 6%.
18. See William M. Landes, Lawrence Lessig & Michael E. Solimine, Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges, 27 J. OF LEGAL STUD. 271, 304 (1998) (noting that the Seventh, First, Second, and Eighth circuits contain the most influential judges, as measured by citation analysis);
19. Barton Beebe, An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978-2005, 156 U. PA. L. REV. 549, 566-68 (2008) (describing the Second and Ninth Circuits as the most influential circuits in the development of the fair use doctrine).
20. Baker, supra note 2, at 78.
21. See generally ALTMAN WEIL PRODUCTIONS, INC., THE SURVEY OF LAW FIRM ECONOMICS (2005).
22. See Baker, supra note 2, at 110 & nn. 142-43.
23. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, 38 THE THIRD BRANCH: NEWSLETTER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS (Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Wash. D.C.), Jan. 2006, at 3, available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ publicinfo/year-end/2005year-endreport.pdf.
24. See, e.g., Aric Press & John O'Connor, Lessons of the Am Law 100, AM. LAW., May 2007, at 127 (reporting that in 2006, profits per partner in the Am Law 100 were up 13.4 percent, with "the average among firms headquartered in New York, an astonishing $2.05 million").
25. See Jerry Markon, Appeals Court Judge Leaves Life Appointment for Boeing, WASH. POST, May 11,2006, at All.
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. See THE LAWYER'S ALMANAC 759-65 (1986).
29. See NZAT'L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS, SURVEY OF JUDICIAL SALARIES 10 (Apr. 1, 2003), available at http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile. exe?CISOROOT=/judicial&CISOPTR=126.
30. The index is generated to compare changes in relative pay - for example, to see if increases in pay have kept pace with inflation. It is calculated by multiplying the 2003 salary by 100 and then dividing by the 1985 salary [($164,000 x 100)/$80,400 = 204].
31. See Altaian Weil, supra note 17, at 166.
32. In the Altman Weil Survey of Law Firm Economics, the Mountain region includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
33. These calculations were made from data provided by the Law Firms Working Group, which has a special licensing agreement with ALM Research, Inc. The $634,420 figure is a weighted average based on the number of equity partners in each firm.
34. These calculations were made from data provided by the Law Firms Working Group, which has a special licensing agreement with ALM Research, Inc.
35. The American Lawyer publishes its annual tables for law firm finances in the July (the Am Law 100) and August (Am Law) issues of the magazine.
36. See, e.g., BRIAN DALTON ET AL., VAULT GUIDE TO THE TOP 100 LAW FIRMS, 2006 EDITION 15 (2005) (ranking the nation's 100 most prestigious law firms based on a survey of over 15,000 law firm associates at 156 major law firms);
37. William D. Henderson & David Zaring, Young Associates in Trouble, 105 MICH. L. REV. 1087, 1096-99 (2007) (book review) (reviewing data on large law firm working conditions and observing a strong positive correlation between profits and prestige and a strong negative correlation between firm profits and associate satisfaction).
38. These calculations were made from data provided by the Law Firms Working Group, which has a special licensing agreement with ALM Research, Inc.
39. These calculations were made from data provided by the Law Firms Working Group, which has a special licensing agreement with ALM Research, Inc.
40. See Altman Weil, supra note 17, at 167.
41. The lateral dataset was compiled by ALM Research, Inc. from news releases. In turn, the Law Firms Working Group added in variables related to profits per partner. For a detailed discussion of this dataset, including its broader application to mobility trends within law firms, see Marc Galanter & William D. Henderson, The Elastic Tournament: The Second Transformation of the Big Law Firm, 60 STAN. L. REV. (forthcoming 2008).
42. We calculated p = .072, indicating statistical significance at 7.2% (one-tailed).
43. We calculated p < .001, indicating statistical significance at <0.1% (one-tailed).
44. See JOHN P. HEINZ & EDWARD O. LAUMANN, CHICAGO LAWYERS: THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE BAR 9 (1982).
45. See JOHN P. HEINZ ET AL., URBAN LAWYERS: THE NEW STRUCTURE OF THE BAR 9-28 (2005) (explaining prior research and its comparison to 1995 data).
46. Id. at 163.
47. Id. at 160.
48. Id. at 163.
49. Id. at 164.
50. See generally ROBERT H. FRANK & PHILIP J. Cook, THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL SOCIETY (1995).