Connecticut Law Tribune
  • Home
  • News
  • Decisions
  • Columns
  • Special Issues
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts
  • Books
  • Lawjobs
  • Events

Home > Judicial Branch Budget Seeks Fiscal Boost From Legislature

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Judicial Branch Budget Seeks Fiscal Boost From Legislature

Proposed budget increase includes raises for judges and prosecutors

By JAY STAPLETON All Articles 

The Connecticut Law Tribune

February 8, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 

The two-year budget proposed last week by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy includes raises for the state's judges and an overall fiscal boost for the state Judicial Branch.

Superior Court judges salaries would increase from $146,800 to $162,751 over a two-year period, at an additional cost to the state of $5.5 million. The raises would amount to 5.3 percent per year, which is the same amount proposed by a special committee appointed to investigate judicial salaries last fall.

Salaries for Appellate Court judges and Supreme Court justices would increase at the same rate.

In the meantime, the Judicial Branch budget, which currently sits at $482 million, would rise to $516 million in fiscal year 2014 and $538 million the following year. That would put spending back on par with where it was last year, when the Judicial Branch budget was $511 million.

Some of the added money would go for raises for prosecutors and public defenders.

Overall, Malloy's budget proposal calls for the state to spend $40.8 billion over the next two years.

If approved by the legislature, the judicial pay increase would be the first for state judges in more than five years. But as the state continues to struggle with a sluggish economy, and other agencies are slated for cuts, there is bound to be opposition in the legislature.

This is "a very difficult time to ask for significant wage increases for people who are already seen as doing pretty well," said Rep. Arthur O'Neill (R-Southbury), who sits on both the legislative Judiciary and Appropriations committees.

In the past, the Judicial Branch's budget proposal had to first pass through the state Office of Policy and Management, which could make changes before sending it to the legislature. However, under a recent law change, the proposal the legislature receives is the Judicial Branch's original proposal.

O'Neill said the request isn't exorbitant, but he added that many lawmakers will feel pressure to trim from anyplace possible as the state continues to deal with a fiscal crisis. "I think even though the Judicial Branch came up with a very tight number, they may not be immune to changes to their budget," O'Neill said.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Next



Subscribe to The Connecticut Law Tribune

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • McCarter & English

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Appropriations
  • Judicial Branch
  • Judicial Compensation Commission
  • Superior Court
  • Supreme Court
  • Judiciary Committee
  • Office of Policy and Management

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Another Former Connecticut AG Lands Law Firm Job
    •      
  2. Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit
    •      
  3. Judge Quinn To Retire As Chief Court Administrator
    •      
  4. Class Of 1,500 Auto Body Repair Shops Entitled To $20M In Punitives
    •      
  5. New Connecticut Privacy Guide Reflects Technology Advances
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

SEC Issues Whistleblower Award; More on the Horizon

Fixing Outside Counsel Budget Forecasting With Data

Proskauer, Former CFO Settle Bias Suit

Global Firms Cope With Istanbul Unrest

D.C. Circuit Nominations a Defining Moment

D.C. Circuit Nominees Widely Respected Within the Bar

iPad Competition Heats Up

Discovery on Discovery Demands Cost-Shifting

The Recorder 25: California Golden Again for Many Firms
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Capital Accounts: Judicial Branch's Brothers Don't See Eye to Eye
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Miami Photographer Sues Pop Star Justin Bieber
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Jeremy Alters Settles With Argentinian Firm For $1 Million
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Alcotest Should Be Discontinued Right Away, DWI Lawyers Say

Lawyer's Fudging of HUD Forms Draws Supreme Court Censure
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Restaurant in Union Square Park Ruled Permissible
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Magistrate Judge Finds Few Benefits to Class in Settlement
  •      
    • Subscription Required

3rd Circuit Could See Rise in Pay-for-Delay Litigation

Cozen Debt Forgiveness Is Campaign Contribution, Court Says
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sorry, Charlie, Your Wife Won't Support You

Top Reasons to Take Your Husband's Name

Texas DA Faces Removal Suits Over DWI, Alleged Misconduct
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Upholds Disqualification of Bickel & Brewer
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fighting Over The Fifth
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Atlanta School Defendants Rely On New Jersey Officers' Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit

Auto Body Case May Lead To CUTPA Reassessment
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About The Connecticut Law Tribune
  • Contact The Connecticut Law Tribune
  • Advertise with Us
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy (updated 6/14/13) |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media