Top Law Schools

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but my question is this: With the older crop of baby boomers around their mid-60's right now and a huge wave of them in their late 50's/early 60's, should we expect a significant amount of retiring lawyers in the next few years? If so, would this create a relative increase in the hiring demands for firms in order to replace them?

In my current field (defense/aerospace) none of my colleagues are from that generation, so I don't have any personal data to go by. Thoughts?

And retiring business as well.

I currently work for a financial services company, so as boomers retire, it seems to be a good thing.

Its all very relative to what type of law you want to practice (or business you want to be in).

No.

I have heard older lawyers speculate that this will help over the next 5-10 years. Pure speculation though.

Lawyers easily and often work into their 70s. Seeing as people's long term investments were slammed over the past couple years (housing, stocks, etc), private practice attorneys who of course have no pension will undoubtedly be working well into their golden years.

SteelReserve wrote: Seeing as people's long term investments were slammed over the past couple years (housing, stocks, etc), private practice attorneys who of course have no pension will undoubtedly be working well into their golden years.

This.

The fact that this hit right as the boomers were reaching retirement age, wiping their nest eggs out at the worst possible time, while their children were simultaneously graduating from college makes this the perfect storm for unemployment.

...

Many, if not most, large firms have a mandatory retirement age.

Interesting, I did not know that. The follow-up question is, what age is that?

And a comment would be, think about what a small slice of the legal market partners at biglaw take up.

Edited: Removed to not pass along bad information. Don't worry though, my misinformation was quoted for posterity below.

odon59 wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed before, but my question is this: With the older crop of baby boomers around their mid-60's right now and a huge wave of them in their late 50's/early 60's, should we expect a significant amount of retiring lawyers in the next few years? If so, would this create a relative increase in the hiring demands for firms in order to replace them?

In my current field (defense/aerospace) none of my colleagues are from that generation, so I don't have any personal data to go by. Thoughts?

Probably should have gone to med school instead. Now there's an industry with increasing demand from aging baby boomers.

TheBigMediocre wrote:

SteelReserve wrote:

Many, if not most, large firms have a mandatory retirement age.

Interesting, I did not know that. The follow-up question is, what age is that?

And a comment would be, think about what a small slice of the legal market partners at biglaw take up.

Fat fucking chance of a mandatory retirement age. You might be highly pressured to retire/go "of counsel" but you can't be forced to retire.

If a firm's management committee can expel a partner (most do), it likely also has the ability to designate a partner as "retired" and adopt relevant policies for such designations.

In terms of a big wave of Biglaw retirements, though, don't expect it: in the 1960s and 1970s, Biglaw firms didn't hire nearly the number of lawyers they do now. The bulge in partner ranks for Biglaw is in lawyers who are 10+ years away from retirement; they are the partners responsible for the big buildup in Biglaw revenues and associate hiring.

It won't help for ppl wanting biglaw. It will probably free up some Govt jobs, though.

TheBigMediocre wrote:

SteelReserve wrote:

Many, if not most, large firms have a mandatory retirement age.

Interesting, I did not know that. The follow-up question is, what age is that?

And a comment would be, think about what a small slice of the legal market partners at biglaw take up.

Fat fucking chance of a mandatory retirement age. You might be highly pressured to retire/go "of counsel" but you can't be forced to retire.

TheBigMedioocre: You are wrong. Many big firms have explicit, black letter, mandatory retirement ages.

disco_barred wrote:

TheBigMediocre wrote:

SteelReserve wrote:

Many, if not most, large firms have a mandatory retirement age.

Interesting, I did not know that. The follow-up question is, what age is that?

And a comment would be, think about what a small slice of the legal market partners at biglaw take up.

Fat fucking chance of a mandatory retirement age. You might be highly pressured to retire/go "of counsel" but you can't be forced to retire.

TheBigMedioocre: You are wrong. Many big firms have explicit, black letter, mandatory retirement ages.

Whoops! Ignore me then, sorry. I just thought it was pretty universal that you couldn't force people to retire because it would be age discrimination. My bad.

TheBigMediocre wrote:Whoops! Ignore me then, sorry. I just thought it was pretty universal that you couldn't force people to retire because it would be age discrimination. My bad.

It's all good. I was shocked and pushed back when I found out too. What a weird practice.

Whoops! Ignore me then, sorry. I just thought it was pretty universal that you couldn't force people to retire because it would be age discrimination. My bad.

According to the The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Mandatory retirement based on age is permitted for: * Executives over age 65 in high policy-making positions who are entitled to a pension over a minimum yearly amount.

Wiki Knows All

disco_barred wrote:

TheBigMediocre wrote:Whoops! Ignore me then, sorry. I just thought it was pretty universal that you couldn't force people to retire because it would be age discrimination. My bad.

It's all good. I was shocked and pushed back when I found out too. What a weird practice.

What's even weirder is that, depending on the firm and its partnership agreement, retired partners may face personal liability if the firm implodes or faces a big monetary liability.

smov_operator wrote:Whoops! Ignore me then, sorry. I just thought it was pretty universal that you couldn't force people to retire because it would be age discrimination. My bad.

According to the The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Mandatory retirement based on age is permitted for: * Executives over age 65 in high policy-making positions who are entitled to a pension over a minimum yearly amount.

Wiki Knows All

Partnership != employment

disco_barred wrote:

smov_operator wrote:Whoops! Ignore me then, sorry. I just thought it was pretty universal that you couldn't force people to retire because it would be age discrimination. My bad.

According to the The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Mandatory retirement based on age is permitted for: * Executives over age 65 in high policy-making positions who are entitled to a pension over a minimum yearly amount.

Wiki Knows All

Partnership != employment

In general a partnership is considered self-employment. However, many law firms write mandatory retirement clauses into the partnership agreement.