header-logo header-logo

18 October 2007
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Ageing US lawyers reluctant to retire

News

Only 38% of lawyers agree they should be forced out of their law firm at a certain age, a recent survey shows—even though half say their firms have such mandatory retirement policies in place.

The Altman Weil Flash Survey on Lawyer Retirement, which surveyed 521 lawyers in management positions in US law firms, reveals that in firms where retirement is mandatory, 38% mandate retirement at 65, 36% at 70, 6% at 67 and 5% at 68. 

In smaller firms (50 to 99 lawyers) that have mandatory policies, the most common retirement age is 70, while in other size categories, firms are most likely to force retirement at 65.

Twenty-seven percent of lawyers surveyed said they plan to retire early, 29% plan to retire at retirement age; 29% later; 4% never plan to retire; and, 11% are unsure.

Those in larger firms are less keen to continue working in law after retirement: only 34% of lawyers in over 500 lawyer firms want to continue compared to 67% of lawyers in firms with 50–99 lawyers. 
Men are more likely to plan on a later retirement, while women are more likely to retire early or at retirement age.

Altman Weil principal James D Cotterman says the survey’s findings may signal a change in retirement policy in US law firms.

“As the Baby Boom generation nears retirement, many have already had a change in perspective. When younger, they knew that mandatory retirement was the right and proper way to manage the firm. Now that they are in their late 50s and early 60s many have come to see this as possibly not the best approach for the good of the firm,” he says.

Issue: 7293 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll