Some Los Angeles Superior Court judges are choosing early retirement after a body-blow was dealt by a single taxpayer to their compensation packages. Backed by legions of conservative public-policy advocates, Harold P. Sturgeon first won an appeals case to prevent Los Angeles County from augmenting local judges’ pay with rich benefits. Now, the State Supreme Court declined to review a lower court’s decision in favor of Sturgeon. While most counties have some form of allowance for its judges for such expenses as caring for their robes, parking, and professional development, Los Angeles County pays significantly higher stipends than in other jurisdictions. Currently local judges can receive in excess of $45,000 in county payments in addition to the $171,648 the state pays the highest-earning judges. The “extra” money is in the form of 401(k) contributions, continuing-education, and other benefits-based income, all of which is taxable. However, the controversy is based on the fact that, constitutionally, judges’ compensation must be determined by the California State Legislature. In Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, the Fourth District Court of Appeals disagreed with attorneys representing the judges, who argued that benefits were not the same as compensation. In one of 2008’s final actions, the California Supreme Court upheld the decision to strip away the county’s generous benefit offerings. Elizabeth Post, executive director of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association is concerned the decision will have a negative impact in terms of getting good judges on the bench. “It’s not fair to hold these judges, living in one of the most expensive counties in the state,and the country,to the same remuneration of other areas,” Post said. “We’re going to lose good people and find it hard to get judges of the same caliber.” Indeed, at least two judges have said they would be forced to retire earlier than they had planned because of financial reasons stemming from the Sturgeon decision. Yet, there may still be hope for judges who are reliant on county benefits, which account for approximately 27 percent of their current pay. That’s because the justice writing the majority opinion for the appellate court noted that the Constitution may allow counties to contribute to jurists’ retirement funds. It remains to be seen if that avenue will be pursued in another action. For his part, Harold Sturgeon is contented with the outcome of the suit he filed, and in which he was supported by Judicial Watch, a private organization that eyes the courts for what its members consider liberally biased judicial activism and wasteful spending. Sturgeon characterized the county’s practice of compensating judges as “double dipping.” Officials at Judicial Watch are also pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision not to review the appeal. “This appellate court ruling represents a tremendous victory (for) the taxpayers and citizens of California,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This extra pay for L.A. County judges was an affront to the rule of law and now, thanks to our lawsuit, taxpayers in L.A. could save up to $22 million a year.” But local bars organizations, such as the San Fernando Valley Bar Association, worry the future quality of the bench is now in question for Los Angeles County. Many of the bars joined an amicus brief in support of the judges. “As judicial compensation wanes in comparison to that enjoyed by attorneys in private practice, and even in the public sector, the pool of highly qualified professionals seeking judgeships will decrease, ultimately leading to the public being served by less qualified judges,” said signers of the brief. For now, it is not clear if and when the county will stop making the payments.