The article discusses the concept of mandatory retirement ages for judges and law firm partners, comparing their benefits and questioning the appropriateness of current age limits. It suggests that while 65 may seem too early for retirement, particularly as many lawyers remain capable well into their 60s and 70s, mandatory retirement can also facilitate succession planning, strengthen client relationships, and allow younger attorneys to take on significant roles. The overall argument advocates for the potential re-evaluation of retirement ages within the legal profession to balance experience with new opportunities.
Mandatory retirement ages for lawyers can encourage succession planning and allow younger attorneys to take on roles that help retain clients and drive the firm forward.
Many competent lawyers remain highly effective well into their late 60s and early 70s, suggesting that current retirement ages may need to be reevaluated.
Mandatory retirement can enhance law firm dynamics, ensuring that younger attorneys have the opportunity to establish their own client relationships and gain ownership.
Collection
[
|
...
]