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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll