September 4, 2007
Marcus Speaks Out On Mandatory Retirement for Lawyers
Bruce Marcus lays out the case the ABA overlooked in addressing the issue of mandatory retirement. The ABA delegates voted to encourage firms to discontinue the practice, but as Marcus notes, ” …they came up with the lesser solution to the greater problem, which, is, I think, the question of judging a lawyer’s capabilities by his or her age, rather than by capability.”
He then proves his case that older can be (and often is) better. As he puts it, “A stupid lawyer at 30 will be a stupid lawyer at 80. A smart lawyer at 30 will be a smarter one at 80 (which, I’ve been told, is the new 39).”
Being on the other side of 65, I agree with Marcus regarding prospects of improving with age, but there is more than just competence at state here that lead one to ask, if not mandatory retirement, then what?"
Mandatory retirement has been crutch, a mechanism, for achieving the transfer of control and earning from one generation to the next. That transfer has to happen. As I often say, you will eventually leave. The question is, do you walk out, run out or get carried out?
There are two recurring problems, other than professional competence, related to the retirement issue that have to be addressed successfully if a law firm is to have a life of its own. The first problem is the founding or senior partner who is reluctant to give up power and control as the risk grows that illness, disability or death will leave the law firm headless. The second problem has to do with disproportionate compensation. It is a frequent problem. Many maturing partners shift their priorities in their life. They began to devote more time to leisure activities and non-firm activities. The problem isn’t with the diminishing work load. The problem arises as the compensation they are pulling out of the firm becomes disproportionate to the aging partner’s continuing contribution.
No question about it, law firms benefit from retaining their most senior talent—they are often the best rainmaker and there will never be a substitute for experience. But the peaceful coexistence of generations requires an orderly transfer of power and earnings. For midrange law firms, the lack of continuity planning, of which mandatory or voluntary retirement plans are a part, puts survival of the firm at risk and the disproportionate distribution of income usually leads to a revolt or splintering of the law firm.
Bruce W. Marcus is an author, consultant, and pundit for professional services marketing. In addition to his books and articles, he shares his insight and wisdom through his blog, THE MARCUS PERSPECTIVE. His 424-word essay on the ABA mandatory retirement resolution is titled They Labored Like Lions and Produced a Mouse.
Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:
877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.
Related posts
Filed under HR, Partner Agreements by Tom Collins
Leave a Comment