Retirement: legislation has created new litigators - 55-year-old white men


Senior management at the UK's largest law firms fully expect partners to use the threat of a claim under age discrimination legislation as a negotiating lever, research has revealed.



A survey of senior and managing partners at 25 top-100 firms, conducted by City firm Fox Williams, found that all but one agreed that disgruntled partners seeking better retirement terms will not hesitate to make such a threat. 'The legislation has created a new litigator - the 55-year-old white male,' one respondent said.



More than two-thirds of those surveyed, 18 out of 25, also maintained that the legislation would create unwelcome cultural change for law firms as it introduces a more performance-driven environment. Some 90% said they would need to establish a better, more formal appraisal system in future.



Although the legislation - the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 - has set the default staff retirement age at 65, the firms surveyed had, on average, a fixed retirement age of 62. But the law does not apply to partners and any retirement age for them will now have to be justified.



The firms justified fixed early retirement ages on the grounds of succession planning, declining productivity with age, and the freeing of equity for younger partners. Many said they would wait and see whether the courts consider this a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim - the test set by the legislation.



The survey also found that two-thirds still believe that their use of post-qualification experience for pay reviews is still justified, and that the vast majority think lockstep will survive the legislation intact.



Fox Williams senior partner Tina Williams said: 'This survey has highlighted the huge impact age discrimination legislation will have on the way law firms manage their businesses. [It] demonstrates that they will not only have to review their policies and procedures for attracting, remunerating and promoting talented lawyers, but also tackle the thorny issues of lockstep and succession planning.'



l Age Concern is to seek a judicial review of the regulations. Advised by national firm Irwin Mitchell, the charity will argue at a hearing next month that the lack of protection for people dismissed from employment at or over the age of 65 - or their employer's retirement age, if higher - cannot be justified.



Jonathan Rayner