The UK's top firms are scrambling to implement a raft of last-minute changes to comply with new age discrimination rules that were ushered in this week.

Lovells, Ashurst, Linklaters, and Slaughter and May have all shifted into gear to review the way they handle issues relating to age, including partner retirement ages, recruitment and benefits for partners.

Lovells' partnership council met this week (4 October) to make a decision on its retirement age, which is currently 62. Senior partner John Young is proposing to increase the age to 65 or remove the ceiling altogether.

Ashurst is also debating whether to increase its retirement age of 60 or abolish the limit, while Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Slaughters are understood to be considering similar changes. Linklaters, however, will stick to its retirement age of 65.

In addition, Lovells is reviewing its partner sabbatical arrangements as there is currently a minimum age limit of 42. It is also preparing a statement to justify why lockstep is a fair way to remunerate partners to meet concerns that the system may be incompatible with the age discrimination laws.

Linklaters, meanwhile, is making a raft of changes to its partnership deed. These include altering the age criteria on post-retirement benefits for partners, such as life assurance and medical insurance, as well as reforming the system for making payments to partners who asked to leave the firm, as these are currently fixed depending on years served.

Linklaters director of risk Raymond Cohen told Legal Week: "We have reviewed our constitution and processes to see if there is anything we needed to adjust to reduce the risk of partners making claims against us and decided we did need to adjust some things. It is largely tinkering – we are confident lockstep remains justifiable."

More trivial changes to emerge include a decision by Simmons & Simmons to ban the firm's tradition of putting up posters of staff celebrating their birthdays throughout the office specifying their age. It will only be acceptable to wish someone happy birthday without citing their age.

Most firms have already int roduced changes for employees in order to meet the 1 October deadline. These include adjustments to the retirement age limits for employees, removing dates of birth from application forms, limiting the use of maximum PQE requirements in recruitment and training interviewers about the age laws.

Are firms over-reacting to the age rules? Post your comments online at: legalweek.com/talkback