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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll