Yes, Counselor, You'll Retire Someday. Avoid These Financial Pitfalls Now.
As a lawyer, you like to think about what's next. You spend your career climbing the ladder from first-year associate to income partner to equity partner. But have you spent enough time thinking about life after the law?
June 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM
6 minute read
As a lawyer, you like to think about what's next. You spend your career climbing the ladder from first-year associate to income partner to equity partner. But have you spent enough time thinking about life after the law and, importantly, how you're going to pay for that life after the law? It's likely you've at least thought about retirement, but taking a proactive, planning-based approach, especially at the start of your career, is another story. Here are some common retirement planning pitfalls that lawyers often experience. Do any of these sound familiar?
Waiting too long to start planning. You're not going to sell your legal business and ride off into the sunset like your business-owner clients. A large, retirement-securing liquidity event is not in your cards, so time is truly of the essence. You have a limited number of years to maximize your savings, and the longer you wait to start planning the more pressure you will put on yourself in the later stages of your career.
If you're early in your career, start by taking advantage of the retirement plans your firm makes available to you. If you're not currently maxing out your contributions, set a goal for getting to that point by increasing your contribution percentage each quarter until you hit the maximum.
If you're later in your career, take heart—there's hope. You may need some help to run this calculation, but start by figuring out how much you need to put away between now and your ideal retirement age to maintain your preferred lifestyle. Hopefully that figure is realistic. If not, you could instead solve for a sustainable spending number that will ensure you don't run out of money and make the necessary lifestyle adjustments over time to hit that spending number by the time you reach retirement age. As a (usually) last resort, you could potentially work longer.
Bottom line is, the sooner you start planning, the more desirable your options will be.
Thinking your portfolio is enough. There's no question that your investment portfolio is a critically important component of your retirement. The assets you work hard to save over the years will be the main funding mechanism to finance your life after the law. However, your portfolio alone is not enough to give you complete confidence that you will be able to sustain your desired lifestyle throughout retirement. It's easy to say, “I've got $X million in my portfolio, I'll be fine.” However, without a clear handle on other key data points, you actually have no idea whether that will be enough.
Start by building a set of retirement planning assumptions that you can use to project how long your money will last. For example, consider the following factors:
- How long you will work. This factor can vary greatly for lawyers, depending on your partnership agreement and health. If you're a partner at a firm with some version of mandatory retirement, you may have very little control over how long you work. Other firms have more flexible agreements, allowing partners to work for as long as they are able. The impact of this factor is enormous. Working just one to two more years and not tapping into your portfolio for those years can significantly change the likelihood of your money lasting.
- How much you spend. Seems so obvious, right? You would think most people would have a crystal-clear understanding of their monthly spending rate. However, as lawyers advance throughout their careers and compensation increases, they often lose track of their monthly cash burn. Do you know how much you spend each month, to within $1,000? If not, look at your last few credit card statements and figure it out. It is impossible to know how large your portfolio needs to be at retirement without knowing what it costs to finance your lifestyle.
There are certainly other assumptions that need to be hashed out in projecting how long your money will last, but these two are a great starting point.
Relying only on firm-sponsored retirement plans. Law firms have traditionally done a great job of providing quality firm-sponsored retirement plans, and in turn lawyers typically do a good job of maxing out their contributions to these plans. It's common for law firms to even offer multiple firm-sponsored plans.
A growing trend in the legal community is seeing more firms adopt a defined benefit plan, such as a cash balance plan, to complement their existing 401(k) plans. These plans can significantly increase the amount that lawyers are able to sock away each year in tax-deferred retirement savings, in some cases well north of $100,000 each year.
While these firm-sponsored plans are great savings vehicles, they all have one very important trait in common: contribution limits. There is only so much you can save into these plans, like it or not. The critical question is whether the combined savings into all your retirement plans will be enough to fund your entire retirement? Very often the answer is no. Depending on your spending habits, your retirement plan savings may only fund a fraction of your retirement.
So, what's the solution? After-tax savings. As I wrote in a Law.com article earlier this year, lawyers should figure out “the number,” which is the annual after-tax savings target needed to give themselves a high probability of a successful retirement. This is savings to a brokerage or trust account above and beyond your firm-sponsored plans. A financial planner can help you figure out what that number should be and help you build a plan for hitting the target.
Important Disclosure: Investments involve risk, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Balasa Dinverno Foltz LLC (BDF) investment and wealth management strategy recommendations may not be profitable, suitable or equal historical performance. BDF's current written disclosure statement discussing advisory services and fees is available for review at www.BDFLLC.com or upon request.
Justin Peacock is an owner and wealth manager at BDF, a wealth management firm based in the Chicago area with assets under management in excess of $4 billion. He leads the firm's attorney practice group and can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Template' for Religious Accommodation: Attorney Gives Insight to $12M Win Over Employer's COVID-19 Vaccination Policies
Georgia RICO Case Against Trump Likely to Avoid Trial Amid Election Win, Nationally-Known Law Professor Says
'Nothing Is Good for the Consumer Right Now': Experts Weigh Benefits, Drawbacks of Updated Real Estate Commission Policies
Evaluating the Biden Administration's Business and Human Rights Agenda
10 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250