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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
back-to-top-scroll