Law.com Home > Large Law Firm Home

Commentary: Why Pillsbury Eliminated Mandatory Retirement

The challenge of recruiting and retaining talented associates has been endlessly discussed and debated among lawyers, law schools and others in the profession. Less talked about, however, and perhaps of even greater importance is the issue of retaining experienced senior partners.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 2002 and 2012, the number of people in the labor force who are age 55 and older will increase by 51 percent, and those who are 65 and older will increase by 43 percent. Indeed, over the next 15 years, 80 percent of the growth in the U.S. native-born workforce will be in the "over 50" age bracket.

Recently, several surveys conducted with Am Law 100 firms have focused on whether firms are moving away from mandatory retirement age policies for partners. While survey results consistently reflect that the majority of firms still have mandatory retirement policies, the survey results vary in terms of what the majority percentage is -- the gap between the number of firms with or without such policies seems to be closing -- and some interesting trends are emerging: Some firms are retaining their mandatory retirement policies and extending the prescribed age at which partners are expected to retire from 65 to 70, other firms are offering senior partners the opportunity to phase-down over a period of time and some firms offer "retired" partners the opportunity to continue working under special contract arrangements.

While law firms historically have depended on the orderly departure of senior partners to allow for the development and progression of junior lawyers into the partnership, factors such as improved longevity, increasing demands related to the globalization of the law and the high value clients place on experience are inspiring firms to rethink what many believe to be an outdated model.

This past August at the ABA annual meeting, one of the most interesting discussions revolved around whether to recommend that law firms drop their mandatory retirement policies based on the supposition that setting a specific age for retirement is arbitrary. Given these considerations, as well as Pillsbury's ongoing commitment to facilitate sound career planning for partners -- whether they have been with the firm one year or 40 -- in April, we opted to abandon presumption of a mandatory retirement age of 65 for partners. Instead, we adopted a program to enable partners to proactively manage their careers, thereby developing and retaining strong performers, regardless of age.

We believe that "best practices" should be governed by flexibility and individual consideration of the needs of our clients, the firm and the individual partner. Thus, our new policy is that as a senior partner nears the traditional retirement age, he or she will be evaluated on an individual basis in accordance with the partner's unique attributes and interests and based on the firm's general performance criteria, including the size and scope of a partner's practice, client service, business generation, ability to create and expand client relationships, mentoring and training of associates and junior partners and other activities that support the firm's mission.

Every partner's situation is different. Not only will the skills and contributions to the firm's overall performance vary among partners reaching "retirement age" but his or her personal interests and goals may suggest very different approaches to "retirement" --whether that means retiring completely from work life, working part time or on a consulting basis or continuing to work full time as long as he or she is able -- or even launching a second or third career.

One advantage of a mandatory retirement age is that it usually "forces" some sort of action. If partners must retire at a designated age, the discussion of how best to transition clients, and to whom, inevitably occurs as the retirement date approaches. Mandatory retirement also allows law firm leaders to avoid "difficult" conversations with senior partners whose practices have declined or whose performance no longer meets expectations. Since a partner automatically has to leave at a designated age, law firm leaders often find it easier to wait out the "problem" rather than confront the underperforming partner whom they still value as a friend or colleague (or in some instances as a former mentor).

Just because something is easier does not necessarily make it better, which is why along with eliminating the mandatory retirement age, Pillsbury recently adopted some practices to ensure that:

• Section leaders facilitate the development of a practice plan with senior partners, taking into consideration the partners' personal interests and goals, along with the clients' and firm's needs. Individual plans (which are generally three- to five-year plans) may include steps to transition client relationships over a period of time, phase into a part-time commitment, take time off to pursue other interests, work on special projects (such as developing training programs or running the firm's pro bono programs) or continue with a full-time practice, grooming eventual successors.

• We make financial planning services available to partners early in their careers to help prepare them for eventual retirement. We believe that enabling partners to develop long-term plans may reduce the likelihood that they will continue to practice because they must rather than because they love what they do.

• We provide professional career consultants to work with partners throughout their careers.

Firm management develops succession plans for key leadership roles, and we work with senior partners who have management responsibilities to ensure continuity as they begin to reduce or change their work commitments.

To close, many partners are likely to retire sometime in their 60s or 70s, regardless of whether a firm has a mandatory retirement age policy. By eliminating ours, we hope to retain some of the firm's most experienced and successful lawyers a bit longer and still pave the way for new classes of partners.

Deborah Johnson is the chief human resources officer for Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. She is a member of Pillsbury's five-person executive committee. She can be reached at deborah.johnson@pillsburylaw.com.

Law.com's ongoing IN FOCUS article series highlights opinion and analysis from our site's contributors and writers across the ALM network of publications.