Many states impose mandatory retirement ages, set by statute, on judges. Such retirement ages make sense since it is important that individuals retire when they may be less able to fulfill the duties of their demanding jobs and so that new people can fill roles held by those who retire. Some law firms also have mandatory retirement ages, but from my perspective, it seems as if such retirement ages are falling out of favor. For a variety of reasons, more law firms should consider mandatory retirement ages for partners and perhaps other attorneys.
When I was an associate attorney at different law firms, I was not usually apprised of retirement ages and other matters governing the partnership of the law firms at which I worked. However, at one firm at which I worked, I am pretty sure that partners who reached 65 either needed to retire or at least start thinking about succession planning so that they could begin the process of leaving the firm. I always thought 65 was a little young, and to me, 70 or perhaps even 75 seems like a fairer retirement age. I know plenty of lawyers who are extremely capable in their late 60s and early 70s, and it seemed that retirement requirements could be a little higher.
In any event, mandatory retirement requirements have a lot of benefits. They permit younger attorneys who may be entering the prime of their careers to make the types of client contacts that ensure certain clients stay at a firm. Moreover, younger lawyers may be more willing to stick around and work at a law firm if they know that they will have ownership of the firm and not need to share profits with senior partners who may have originated clients ages ago. Additionally, there are a number of smaller benefits to partners retiring. I remember one lawyer telling me that having senior partners give up their prime offices when they neared retirement was an important part of mandatory retirement requirements.
Recently, I met up with a number of lawyers, and one attorney mentioned that at her firm, many older partners still work at the shop even though their abilities have diminished due to age. This friend also told me that this caused friction within the firm since younger lawyers did not enjoy feeling like they were carrying older lawyers. We also mused about why older lawyers would want to stick around a law firm into their 70s since the legal profession is a grind, and more senior lawyers would presumably want to enter retirement away from the legal profession.
In any case, more law firms both big and small should consider imposing mandatory retirement ages. Some smaller law firms permit lawyers to withdraw from a firm without as many consequences after they reach a certain age, but do not impose an explicit retirement requirement. Moreover, some law firms might be too small to really consider imposing a mandatory retirement age. I am willing to bet that such a requirement would not have too much meaning in my own firm since it is just my brother and me at the shop and there is not much of an age difference between the two of us.
As can be seen in the political arena, people in power have a tendency to stay in power as long as possible, even if their abilities may diminish with age and even if this makes it difficult for younger individuals to move up a hierarchy. As a result, more lawyers should consider retirement requirements for their law firms. I would love to hear from readers about their own perspectives on mandatory retirement ages, but just like such requirements benefit the judiciary, mandatory retirement ages can be advantageous to law firms as well.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at [email protected].
