May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Categories [more]
General (1984)
Lawyer 2 Lawyer (284)
Latest Blogs
This Month's Posts [more]
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Links of Interest [more]
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Quote of the Day - It is time I stepped aside for a less experienced and less able man. - Professor Scott Elledge on his retirement from Cornell
Adjust font size: A A+ A++
Claim Your Profile on Avvo

What's The Statute Of Limitations For Retirement?

Disclaimer here: I'm nearing 50 (if you really want to know, send me an email), and this headline: For lawyers, 60 is the new 50 caught me off guard. Somebody thought 50 was old?

Sure, when I was a kid, it was "Don't trust anyone over 30." But I always thought lawyers could practice until late in life, and I'm glad to see that it's apparently true.

The headline above comes from a story written by Ellen Rosen of the New York Times, and she points out in her article that most large law firms require mandatory retirement at 60, and some extend it to 63 or 67. One of our lawyers is in his 70's, well beyond that time limit. Rosen cites several examples of lawyers who found new challenges and practically new careers after 60.

Our experience is similar. We find a tremendous value in seniority, and welcome the guidance that comes from seeing practically everything that law has to offer. There are plenty of other older lawyers out there, too.

Should law firms even have a set age for mandatory retirement? What is your law firm's experience?

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 at 23:25 Comments Closed (0) |
 
Share Link