A&O ends fixed retirement date for partners as SJ Berwin, Nabarro, Holman review partner retirement policies

Allen & Overy (A&O) is abolishing its mandatory partner retirement age of 60 as a growing number of major City law firms move away from compulsory retirement dates for partners in the UK.

The City giant's move comes as research by Legal Week found that SJ Berwin, Nabarro and Holman Fenwick Willan are also currently reviewing their policies in the wake of legislative changes which have phased out default retirement ages for UK employees.

Three other major firms – Ashurst, Hogan Lovells and Linklaters – had already removed default retirement ages from their partnership deeds in light of the changes to UK employment law that were originally floated in 2006.

The findings are based on responses from 25 of the 30 largest UK firms by revenue and follow the introduction of new retirement laws in October 2011 that prevent employers from compulsorily retiring employees at 65 without full justification.

Thirteen top 30 law firms have a default retirement age for partners of 65, with a further six requiring partners to retire at either 60 or 62.

The research also indicates older partners are poorly represented within UK law firms, with only three firms admitting they have more than 10 UK partners over the age of 60: DLA Piper, Hogan Lovells and Berwin Leighton Paisner. The only other responding firms with any partners over 60 were Ashurst, SJ Berwin, Addleshaw Goddard and SNR Denton.

At a time when workers are expected to want to remain in employment for longer due to better health and pension commitments, the research suggests some law firms are still ill-prepared to meet calls from older partners who want to work reduced hours or change to non-partner status.

While many firms are willing to make exceptions in individual cases, few have formal provisions for older partners. However, 60% of respondents (15 firms) maintain some sort of flexibility in their remuneration systems that can accommodate older partners approaching retirement, such as a managed lockstep or merit-based pay.

Commenting on its change of policy, A&O managing partner Wim Dejonghe (pictured) said: "We are a global institution and there are a great variety of ways in which the careers of our partners are played out. To have an inflexible mandatory retirement age globally that forces partners to leave the firm at a particular point in time no longer made any sense."

Ashurst senior partner Charlie Geffen said: "Removing the default retirement age was obviously the right thing to do. At Ashurst, we are more interested in partners' contributions than their age."

The research comes as employment partners await a Supreme Court judgment in former Clarkson Wright & Jakes partner Leslie Seldon's claim against his firm in which he alleges his forced retirement at 65 constituted age discrimination.

While the current UK laws cover employees rather than equity partners, the ruling is expected to shed more light on the implications for law firms.

Additional reporting by Legal Week staff.