New York has some of the most diligent, talented men and women sitting on the bench. And they have gone too long without a raise.

A judge serving since 1995 has seen his pay increase only once — in 1999 — when the salaries of state judges were brought in line with the remuneration of federal court judges. Since that time, the value of judicial compensation has eroded nearly 20%, due to increases in the cost of living. During that time, the salaries of federal judges, judiciaries in other states, and other court employees regularly increased to keep pace with the rising cost of living.

Increases for the New York judiciary have failed to keep pace. Indeed, many first-year associates in New York City are paid more than our Supreme Court justices. In fact, state Supreme Court justices currently earn $136,700 annually, significantly less than the $160,000 starting salary earned by a law school graduate in his or her first year as an associate at a prestigious Manhattan law firm.

Governor Spitzer has recognized this problem. In his Executive Budget, he included crucial funding to provide judges with the long overdue pay raise they deserve. In doing so, the governor has demonstrated that he shares the New York State Bar Association’s strong belief that the quality of justice and of our legal system depends on the quality of our judiciary. An independent, well-qualified judiciary must be compensated in a fair, consistent manner.

According to a survey of judicial salaries published in 2007 by the National Center for State Courts, the $136,700 that state Supreme Court judges earn, when adjusted for the cost of living, is equivalent to an annual salary of $110,048. That puts New York’s ranking as 37 out of 51 states in the nation.

Legislation currently proposed would provide parity between the salaries of state Supreme Court justices and judges at the federal district court level, who earn $165,200. The salaries of other judges in the New York system would then be set by a formula, utilizing the Supreme Court as a base. County level judges would receive 95% of Supreme Court judges’ salaries; Civil, Criminal, and District Court judges would receive 93%; and a city court judge in cities other than New York would earn 90% of the salary of a Supreme Court judge.

For years, the New York State Bar Association has been advocating salary increases. We have strongly endorsed Chief Judge Judith Kaye’s comprehensive salary reform proposal, which would create an independent commission to review compensation and provide periodic pay increases when warranted.

Although the budget that Governor Spitzer presented does not contain a component for periodic increases, it does provide for needed, retroactive increases. Another important aspect of the governor’s plan is that it includes the funding in the actual Executive Budget, which has not been done in the past. This demonstrates that judicial salary reform is a high priority for his administration and guarantees that judicial salaries will be acted on in the final budget.

A critical, sometimes overlooked aspect of the judicial salary issue is the effect that these salaries have on the diversity of the bench. Chief Judge Kaye has made it clear that the current wage freeze is a threat to the independence of the judiciary and hinders efforts to promote diversity.

The bar association is deeply committed to increasing diversity both in the profession and in the judiciary, and fair compensation is needed if we are to continue making progress in this critical area. We cannot have a system in place where only the wealthiest of New Yorkers can afford to become a judge.

Judicial independence is a core value of the bench and bar, one that must be defended. An important step was taken by the governor to preserve this independence, and any budget adopted by the Legislature must do the same. The New York State Bar Association will press hard on this issue until a fair salary increase is accomplished.

Mr. Alcott is president of the New York State Bar Association and is a senior litigation partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.