Law firms will face an uphill battle to set any retirement age for partners, it was claimed this week, after the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) sprung a surprise in its finalised age discrimination rules.

The DTI decided against adding partners to an exemption that means a mandatory retirement age of 65 or above for employees will not amount to unlawful age discrimination. As a result, law firms will have to justify any retirement age for partners from 1 October.


The Employment Lawyers Association and the City of London Law Society had joined calls for partners to be included.


James Davies, chairman of the association's age discrimination working party and joint head of employment at City firm Lewis Silkin, said the decision will make it 'very difficult' for firms to justify any retirement age. They will need to look to the reasons given by the DTI for allowing the employee retirement age - namely 'work-force planning' and avoiding an adverse impact on the provision of occupational pensions and other work-related benefits.


But these may offer little help. Few partners have such pensions, and few firms will be able to prove that they plan their partnerships in any long-term way. 'Most law firms don't work like this,' Mr Davies said.


Law Society President Kevin Martin said: 'Firms must be careful that they do not fall foul of the new regulations. When firms review their partnership agreements, they will have to ensure that any provision relating to age can be justified.'


However, as expected, partners were included in an exemption allowing some service-related benefits, making it easier to justify lockstep remuneration systems.


Age discrimination will have a major impact on practices. Other issues include paying and recruiting on the basis of post-qualification experience, and finding trainees through the university milk round, which could be weighted against older applicants.