Here's a familiar theme: for years, a groundswell of pressure has been building for change in the legal industry with few results to show for it. You could say that of a lot of things, of course, but in this case I'm thinking of how City law firms treat older partners and how those same partners approach the latter years of their careers in full-time practice.

As such, this week's Lawyer's Life piece acts as a timely reminder that these issues are not going anywhere soon. Law firms still expect many of their partners to retire between the age of 50 and 55 – still pretty young by most yardsticks. Indeed, the truth is that many City firms still regard it as an easy solution to ease older partners out of the door. And, in pure economic terms, you can see the logic. The backbone of a law firm and its future prosperity rests on two core ranks: mid-level associates and younger partners. If a law firm isn't delivering high quality in this respect, it is running an annuity business.

But it still strikes me that much of the problem is down to the straightjacket of lockstep and its modified cousins, a model that still imposes much too tight an embrace on many firms. As good as a well-executed lockstep is at ensuring quality control and cultural coherence, it conflicts with human biology at various key stages.

So it's hard to see why law firms cannot offer flexibility to older partners to reduce their remuneration in later years to account for the commitments you can make when you still have a lot to offer beyond brute stamina. I know US law firms' more progressive approach to older partners is not what it once was, but tapered pay models and other more flexible arrangements still strike me as a nod towards decency while making solid business sense. If the case for flexibility exists for younger female partners, I see no reason why it also doesn't for older partners.

But if part of the problem with managing older lawyers is the economic model of law firms, the other (related) aspect is how to prepare the grey hairs for a life after law. Everyone knows that boards – fairly or not – don't value practising lawyers as candidates for non-executive roles. The only obvious solution for veteran partners is to start considering what contacts and experience will aid their careers after law a good few years before they give up full-time practice.

Yet it would be hard to design a job less suited to allowing a person to build up a broader portfolio of transitional skills than that of an equity partner. Law firms can and should do more. And not just for fairness. So far law firms have been good at avoiding damaging litigation from disgruntled older partners, but such good fortune is unlikely to last indefinitely.