James Davies makes a number of good points in his discussion of retirement ages for partners. Certainly firms should consider the implications carefully before either retaining or abolishing a retirement age, not least because of the messages it sends out about the firm. As we have seen in other areas over the years, a policy of ‘do as we say, not as we do’ is less than impressive from the client's perspective.

One of the issues surrounding partner retirement that contributes to the dilemma for law firms is that performance management of partners – if it happens at all – is often more of a box-ticking exercise than a meaningful process of behavioural change. Lawyers have been known to say that they are uncomfortable with challenging their fellow partners' shortcomings. That is fair enough, as long as a different attitude doesn't apply when individual partners start to age.

There is also the matter of loyalty from older partners. What message is sent to staff of the firm and its clients when they see someone who has probably spent most of their working life with a firm suddenly turn on it in retribution once they have left?

Firms and individuals need to acknowledge that everyone gets old, so exit plans must be discussed openly, on a regular basis, from an early stage. While it is true that 65 is no longer old, and therefore that there is no reason why people should be forced out so early, it is also the case that people do get stale and that many older people would prefer to work for longer but not to work full-time. Consultancy, flexible working, project work, and mentoring and development roles would be welcomed by many and would solve the ‘dead men’s shoes’ issue for those coming up behind. However, introducing these options requires innovative and open thinking on the part of both the firm and older partners.

Dianne Bown-Wilson, In my prime (specialists in age diversity and the mature market), Harpenden