header-logo header-logo

Ageing US lawyers reluctant to retire

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll