Many
states
impose
mandatory
retirement
ages,
set
by
statute,
on
judges. Such
retirement
ages
make
sense
since
it
is
important
that
individuals
retire
when
they
may
be
less
able
to
fulfill
the
duties
of
their
demanding
jobs
and
so
that
new
people
can
fill
roles
held
by
those
who
retire. Some
law
firms
also
have
mandatory
retirement
ages,
but
from
my
perspective,
it
seems
as
if
such
retirement
ages
are
falling
out
of
favor.
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
more
law
firms
should
consider
mandatory
retirement
ages
for
partners
and
perhaps
other
attorneys.
When
I
was
an
associate
attorney
at
different
law
firms,
I
was
not
usually
apprised
of
retirement
ages
and
other
matters
governing
the
partnership
of
the
law
firms
at
which
I
worked.
However,
at
one
firm
at
which
I
worked,
I
am
pretty
sure
that
partners
who
reached
65
either
needed
to
retire
or
at
least
start
thinking
about
succession
planning
so
that
they
could
begin
the
process
of
leaving
the
firm. I
always
thought
65
was
a
little
young,
and
to
me,
70
or
perhaps
even
75
seems
like
a
fairer
retirement
age. I
know
plenty
of
lawyers
who
are
extremely
capable
in
their
late
60s
and
early
70s,
and
it
seemed
that
retirement
requirements
could
be
a
little
higher.
In
any
event,
mandatory
retirement
requirements
have
a
lot
of
benefits. They
permit
younger
attorneys
who
may
be
entering
the
prime
of
their
careers
to
make
the
types
of
client
contacts
that
ensure
certain
clients
stay
at
a
firm.
Moreover,
younger
lawyers
may
be
more
willing
to
stick
around
and
work
at
a
law
firm
if
they
know
that
they
will
have
ownership
of
the
firm
and
not
need
to
share
profits
with
senior
partners
who
may
have
originated
clients
ages
ago.
Additionally,
there
are
a
number
of
smaller
benefits
to
partners
retiring.
I
remember
one
lawyer
telling
me
that
having
senior
partners
give
up
their
prime
offices
when
they
neared
retirement
was
an
important
part
of
mandatory
retirement
requirements.
Recently,
I
met
up
with
a
number
of
lawyers,
and
one
attorney
mentioned
that
at
her
firm,
many
older
partners
still
work
at
the
shop
even
though
their
abilities
have
diminished
due
to
age. This
friend
also
told
me
that
this
caused
friction
within
the
firm
since
younger
lawyers
did
not
enjoy
feeling
like
they
were
carrying
older
lawyers.
We
also
mused
about
why
older
lawyers
would
want
to
stick
around
a
law
firm
into
their
70s
since
the
legal
profession
is
a
grind,
and
more
senior
lawyers
would
presumably
want
to
enter
retirement
away
from
the
legal
profession.
In
any
case,
more
law
firms
both
big
and
small
should
consider
imposing
mandatory
retirement
ages.
Some
smaller
law
firms
permit
lawyers
to
withdraw
from
a
firm
without
as
many
consequences
after
they
reach
a
certain
age,
but
do
not
impose
an
explicit
retirement
requirement. Moreover,
some
law
firms
might
be
too
small
to
really
consider
imposing
a
mandatory
retirement
age. I
am
willing
to
bet
that
such
a
requirement
would
not
have
too
much
meaning
in
my
own
firm
since
it
is
just
my
brother
and
me
at
the
shop
and
there
is
not
much
of
an
age
difference
between
the
two
of
us.
As
can
be
seen
in
the
political
arena,
people
in
power
have
a
tendency
to
stay
in
power
as
long
as
possible,
even
if
their
abilities
may
diminish
with
age
and
even
if
this
makes
it
difficult
for
younger
individuals
to
move
up
a
hierarchy. As
a
result,
more
lawyers
should
consider
retirement
requirements
for
their
law
firms. I
would
love
to
hear
from
readers
about
their
own
perspectives
on
mandatory
retirement
ages,
but
just
like
such
requirements
benefit
the
judiciary,
mandatory
retirement
ages
can
be
advantageous
to
law
firms
as
well.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of
The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of
Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at
[email protected].