Baltimore County violated the state constitution last year when it awarded $30,000 raises to its three orphans’ court judges.

County Executive Kathy Klausmeier’s administration has asked Chief Judge Arthur M. Frank, and judges Juliet G. Fisher and Michelle Arvin-Greer to return the money paid to them since July 1.

“Baltimore County can confirm that previously approved salary increases for Orphans’ Court judges were rescinded, and the county has initiated the process to recover any payments made under those increases,” Dakarai Turner wrote in an email.

When I reported the pay raise in September, county officials wouldn’t admit they’d broken the law. But they immediately began researching what the constitution says and, within two months, agreed I was right.

“This was an inadvertent oversight,“ Turner wrote. “The county has moved promptly to correct the issue and ensure that the appropriate steps were taken to ensure compliance with the law.”

It’s more than an oversight.

The county Office of Law should have known better, but the judges — all of them lawyers — should have understood the state constitution at least as well as a journalist from Annapolis.

Frank and the others asked for this raise, not recognizing the problem created by starting it in the middle of their elected term. The county reversed course but kept the embarrassing admission quiet.

It might seem like a small mistake, now resolved.

But when it comes to Maryland’s orphans’ court system, getting the law wrong is a common problem, with greater consequences than raises that the judges probably deserve.

The courts were established after the Revolutionary War and have survived waves of judicial reform. Judges are elected to rule on wills, probate and guardianship.

They’ve become error-prone election prizes that the public simply doesn’t know about until they find themselves in front of one.

Three jurisdictions have abandoned the system in favor of letting circuit court judges decide these issues, with good reason.

Among the 63 orphans court judges statewide, only 19 are lawyers. When decisions by those lay judges are appealed to the circuit court, 65.7% are overturned, the most recent data available shows.

Baltimore City and Baltimore and Prince George’s counties require judges to have law degrees, but none require them to specialize in probate law. When rulings are appealed in these counties, half are overturned.

In Harford, Howard and Montgomery counties, circuit court judges have the lowest rates of incorrect decisions. Just 12% of their rulings are overturned.

Despite continuing problems, there’s a drive to protect sitting judges and elements of the courts as they are now.

Del. Jon Cardin proposed legislation in Annapolis this year that would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot raising the retirement age for appellate, circuit and district court judges from 70 to 73.

For the first time, it would also apply an age limit to the orphans’ court.

Sitting judges would be exempt, and many are way over the proposed limit. More than 20 sitting judges are in their 70s. At least 10 are in their 80s.

Most are running for reelection, and one candidate in Garrett County is 93.

Reform is supposed to be on the way, but even there, the orphans’ court system has its defenders.

The General Assembly created the Task Force to Study Fiduciary Adjudication in Maryland last year, prompted in part by a feud on the Anne Arundel County bench.

Headed by state Sen. Nick Charles, the panel of lawmakers, attorneys, orphans’ court judges and administrators was supposed to report back to lawmakers by December. Instead, they asked for more time.

They plan to finalize recommendations by April 16 and submit the final report by June 30.

There’s opposition to turning the role over to the circuit courts, with task force members arguing that wills and estates is a specialized area of law with its own rules and procedures. Instead, the group will recommend getting rid of lay judges but keeping judges who are attorneys.

At least one committee member said circuit court judges who decide these cases aren’t always qualified.

They “don’t know what they’re doing,” Annapolis attorney Jonathan G. Lasley said at the February meeting. “So you have to do training wheels.”

The most controversial orphans’ court judge right now may be Marc Knapp in Anne Arundel County.

He and Chief Judge Vickie Gipson clashed immediately after he was elected four years ago, resulting in harassment charges and disciplinary hearings by the Maryland judiciary.

Gipson decided not to seek another term, but Knapp did. A panel of judges recommended he be removed.

If the Maryland Supreme Court rules Knapp can remain on the ballot, voters would choose between him, the other remaining judge, two former judges, two attorneys — one of them disbarred — and a landscaping business owner.

In Baltimore County, Frank won’t be on the ballot.

After initially seeking another four-year term, he withdrew in February. He said age was a factor. He’s in his 70s.

He was the leading advocate of higher salaries: $105,000 for himself, $100,000 for Fisher and Arvin-Greer.

After I wrote about the raises in September, County Attorney James Benjamin’s office researched the ban on midterm raises.

His office eventually consulted a state constitutional law expert, who determined the ban also covers the orphans’ court, Frank said.

By October, the county asked the judges to let them deduct the money incrementally from their paychecks to simplify the impact on taxes and pensions. Frank agreed, but said his fellow judges opted to repay a lump sum.

Fisher, Arvin-Greer and a third candidate are seeking the three seats on the court. They face no opposition, so they’ll be in line for the raises after the June 23 primary.

No matter how much the raise might be deserved, Frank agreed that the judges didn’t qualify for it, and won’t until after voters determine in November if they will get it.

“We absolutely didn’t want the money if it was unconstitutional.”