Changes to draft age discrimination rules are set to allow law firms to fix a retirement age of 65 for partners and make it easier to justify lockstep pay systems, it emerged this week.

Under a draft published last year, a mandatory retirement age of 65 or above would not amount to unlawful age discrimination, although an employer would have to justify a lower age. Some service-related benefits would also be allowed.


However, these exemptions applied just to employees and not to partners, meaning law firms would have had to justify any retirement age for partners and faced problems with lockstep pay systems as they reward partners on the basis of length of service.


But it is now being suggested that partners will be brought within the exemptions when the finalised regulations are published before Easter, ahead of the introduction of the new laws on 1 October. The Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) and City of London Law Society were among those to push for this.


James Davies, chairman of the ELA's age discrimination working party and joint head of employment at City firm Lewis Silkin, said his belief is that the change will happen, but added that firms that make partners retire under the age of 65 will still face difficulties.


Law Society President Kevin Martin warned firms to prepare quickly for October. 'There is no upper limit to the compensation that can be awarded, so cases could prove costly. We anticipate the regulations will bring the rules regarding partners into line with employees in areas such as retirement.'


Leading employment expert Ronnie Fox of City firm Fox Williams welcomed the developments, saying attitudes would be changed as well as the law. He contrasted City law firms, which try to 'move people out' once they are in their 50s, with US firms, where partners work on into their 60s and 70s. The US has had age discrimination laws since 1967.