X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Forty years ago, it was San Francisco’s Summer of Love. This year, it’s the Summer of Lawyers. More than 9,000 attorneys, judges and other legal types will come together for the American Bar Association’s 130th annual meeting starting Thursday. Besides hosting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer as the keynote speaker, the organization also will take up issues ranging from law firms’ mandatory retirement policies to state secrets privileges at its House of Delegates meeting. The six-day event, which includes a legal-wares expo and dozens of hours of legal education, is the largest yearly gathering among the ABA’s 413,000 members. One of the initiatives ABA President Karen Mathis has pushed this year is the Second Season of Service, in which she has called upon lawyers to stay active in the profession by providing pro bono work once they retire. By some estimates, a full quarter of the country’s 1 million attorneys � or 250,000 � will be at least 65 by 2011. “These are still vibrant people,” she said. The aging attorney population is also the focus of a proposed resolution that the House of Delegates is expected to vote on during its session on Aug. 13-14. Proposal 10A calls for law firms to discontinue their mandatory-retirement policies and, instead, to evaluate senior partners individually in a manner “consistent with the firm’s performance criteria.” Submitted with the proposal is a report on law firm mandatory-retirement policies issued in March by the Special Committee on Age Discrimination of the New York State Bar Association. The report considered such factors as the growth of the profession from 300,000 in 1960 to 1 million currently, the huge increase in the size of law firms, the lengthening of the lifespan and health of senior lawyers, and the elimination of age-based retirement policies in most other business sectors. The report then concluded that law firms should abandon mandatory retirement. “It’s out of step with the times,” said Mark Alcott, immediate past president of the NYSBA. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy Chairman Mel Immergut said his firm, which has a mandatory-retirement policy, considered the NYSBA report when it came out and decided that the policy at his firm was appropriate. “However, we would certainly pay careful attention to any additional learning that comes from the ABA or any other responsible organization on this subject,” Immergut said. Mathis, who is a partner in the Denver office of Morristown, N.J.-based McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, said that she liked to “listen to the debate,” but that she favored abolishing the retirement policies. “It’s an arbitrary age limit that doesn’t look at vitality, intelligence and the ability to perform a job,” she said. CAPABLE LAW STUDENTS Particularly controversial is a move by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar that creates a quantitative standard regarding the responsibility of law schools to produce students who are capable of passing the bar exam. In an 11th-hour decision, the executive committee of the council for the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar decided to recommend that the council withdraw the matter for consideration by the House of Delegates until the ABA’s February 2008 meeting. Among other things, it would require a school to show that, in at least three of the past five years, first-time test takers passed the state bar at a rate no more than 10 percentage points below the average pass rate of test takers from other accredited schools in the same state. Also, schools in which more than 20 percent of their graduates take the bar exam for the first time in another state would need to demonstrate that at least 70 percent passed during the two most recent bar-exam periods. As an alternative to the first criterion, schools would need to demonstrate that 80 percent of their graduates who took the exam anywhere in the country passed within three attempts, within three years of graduation. Dozens of law deans have voiced their opposition to the proposal in letters to the ABA. William Rakes, chair of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, said that the new rule was prompted by the ABA’s bid with the U.S. Department of Education to renew the ABA’s law school accrediting authority. Rakes is a partner at Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore in Roanoke, Va. Another proposal pertains to individuals seeking admission to practice who have undergone past treatment for addiction or mental health. Proposition 117 would have all admissions authorities (generally individual states) implement conditional admission for otherwise eligible candidates who have received prior treatment for emotional difficulties or substance abuse. “This isn’t about getting shaky people admitted to the bar. It’s about keeping people healthy and fruitful members of the bar,” said Richard Soden, chairman of the ABA’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs and a partner at Goodwin Procter in Boston. Also scheduled for a vote are several proposals related to youth-at-risk, a focus for Mathis this year. One calls for the legal community to support programs for youth who “age out” of foster care at age 18. Another encourages support for placing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in homes that are LGBT-friendly. Still another proposal calls for the ABA to support an amendment to federal law that would include children in homeless assistance programs. Also slated for a vote is a proposal calling for judicial independence, another urging courts to avoid dismissing cases based on the state’s secrets privilege, and another supporting the regionalization of disaster preparedness agencies. Replacing Mathis, whose one-year term expires at this year’s meeting, as ABA president is William Neukom, a partner at K&L Gates and former executive vice-president of law and corporate affairs at Microsoft Corp. Leigh Jones is a reporter with The National Law Journal, a Recorder affiliate based in New York City.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.