Despite mounting pressure to retire early, partners still struggle to forge fulfilling careers outside the legal profession. Friederike Heine reports

"After 27 years in legal practice, I'm finding it difficult to find new opportunities to explore and I miss the camaraderie of the office. My social life, which used to be inextricably linked to my practice, is practically non-existent. For an energetic 54-year-old, the prospect of spending your retirement at home is difficult to imagine."

The above email excerpt reflects the angst among many of the City's retiring partners, most of whom are between the relatively youthful ages of 55 and 60 (and sometimes even younger). While typically brushed under the carpet, when the issue of life after law surfaces, it often strikes a raw nerve with individuals.

The traditional notion of retirement remains repugnant to many professionals, representing disempowerment and inactivity. Furthermore, the idea of relaunching oneself into a competitive job market seems a threatening prospect in later life.

In the legal industry, the problems faced by transitioning senior practitioners are particularly acute, given the extent to which partners have become used to working within the well-resourced confines of law firms.

"What you don't realise until after you retire is the extent to which working, and working with energetic, younger colleagues, keeps you young," reflects one retired senior partner of a major City practice wistfully. "You really miss that when it's gone."

But if the subject remains almost strangely taboo in the City, there is no doubt that the issue of what partners are expected – and themselves expect – to do after law will become more pressing in the years ahead. For 20 years now the changes in the commercial legal profession linked to globalisation and the related pressure to raise profitability have seen partners retiring earlier.

Yet the working population is also living longer, leaving retiring partners potentially facing decades to fill after retiring from law. Meanwhile, the sustained economic malaise since the banking crisis of 2008 has seen many law firms cut back their equity partnerships, a process that disproportionately hits older partners.

Aggravating this tension is the undisputed fact that the skillset of commercial lawyers is not in high demand for business roles in general and particularly for the non-executive positions working partners often see themselves assuming. As such, individual lawyers tend to avoid thinking about the topic prior to retirement as it leads to uncomfortable questions – how will I fill my time? How will I fare outside an institutional framework? Am I employable in a business context?

If the dilemma of the retiring partner provokes angst and inertia among the individuals affected, law firms themselves have been at best ambivalent – aware that there is a mounting problem affecting those who helped build their brands over decades, but unsure of how to fashion solutions that can accomodate the legal industry's financial model.

The state of play

For this piece, Legal Week canvassed the UK's top 30 law firms in revenue terms for broad information on retirement policies and provisions aimed at providing support or flexibility to older partners either considering careers outside law or wanting to work more flexibly than possible for a full equity partner.

The removal of the default retirement age of 65 in the UK in April last year and a legal challenge to the forced retirement of a partner before the Supreme Court has resulted in law firms grappling with the implications and contemplating whether to abandon retirement ages, or retain them and argue that they are objectively justified. (The legislation still allows employers to use retirement ages but requires them to justify their policy in the context of their business.)

"A number of firms thought that the safest course would be to remove retirement ages altogether," says partnership specialist Ronnie Fox. "However, many are concerned that to do so would restrict the scope for necessary partner churn to provide career progression opportunities for younger lawyers."

Legal Week research found that despite the recent changes in legislation, nearly half (48%) of the 25 responding firms from the UK top 30 still have a retirement age of 65, with only one of those currently considering whether to abolish it altogether. A further six firms in the top 30 have default retirement ages of either 60 or 62, with only four firms abolishing their retirement age altogether in response to legislation changes. Firms to in recent years abolish their mandatory retirement age include Linklaters, Ashurst, Allen & Overy (A&O) and Hogan Lovells.

Firms currently considering changes to their retirement policy in light of changes to mandatory retirement laws include SJ Berwin, Nabarro and Holman Fenwick Willan. Nabarro has a default retirement age of 60 and is considering either moving it to 65 or abolishing it. SJ Berwin, which has a retirement age of 65, is considering abolishing it altogether. Five firms in the top 30 currently have no set retirement age, either through changes to the new retirement provisions or, in the case of Clyde & Co, because a default retirement age was never in their partnership deed.

The survey results illustrate the difficulty that law firms are having in combining lockstep-based pay for partners with accommodating older partners. Around a third of the top 30 have lockstep-based models that do not allow for equity partners to work part-time or on reduced share. Among these are the entire magic circle along with Herbert Smith and Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) (though A&O does have a scheme allowing partners to apply for part-time status for a defined period to help retain female partners, and firms quite often agree ad hoc deals with individual partners to reduce their hours).

In contrast, 58% of firms do have some form of flexibility in their partnership to reduce the earnings of older partners, either by moving them down the equity ladder or reducing their pay on a merit basis.

The vast majority of firms do have a defined role, such as consultant or of counsel, that can accommodate partners stepping down from the partnership (Slaughter and May remains the major exception while Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has such roles but does not usually use them for retiring partners).

The findings of Legal Week's research give weight to claims that pressure on partners to retire early means they typically stand down well before 65. Nearly a third (27%) of responding firms had no partners over the age of 60. DLA Piper, Hogan Lovells and BLP emerge as the only responding top 30 firms with more than 10 partners over the age of 60.

But while there is more flexibility in the roles on offer for older partners than previously, there is little doubt that law firms are still wrestling with contradictory forces. By consensus, flexibility has so far been introduced more for the benefit of law firms themselves and to protect profitability rather than to cater to the needs of older partners. This dynamic has left such roles with something of a stigma, rather than being viewed as a positive career choice.

Locked up

Given the picture that emerges from the partnerships at the top 30, it is understandable that many see lockstep itself as a prime cause for the raw deal given to older partners. Even with fewer partners now being made up, and expectations that most will have to first undertake a period on salaried or non-equity status, the relatively flat nature of lockstep at City law firms is notoriously rigid. Many firms operate a ladder between eight to 12 years, with the plateau partners earning between two and two-and-a-half times that of entry level partners.

Even if few partners make it to equity before 35, that means many firms have partners hitting the plateau by 45. The result, combined with a heavy period of expansion 10 to 15 years ago, is that many major law firms now have swelling ranks of plateau partners, soaking up the firms' available equity and stoking tensions between younger and older partners. For this system to work economically, law firms have to maintain superb quality control with regard to those gaining equity partnership, combined with regular and aggressive management of their partnerships.

Linklaters and Freshfields – both longstanding advocates of lockstep partnership – both have considered a move to create a tail-off or tapered provision for partners with plateau earnings. Freshfields, which has since abandoned the plans, had been consulting on proposed modifications including giving senior partners the opportunity to take a reduction in their share of the profits in exchange for a reduced working week.

Linklaters has been looking at implementing similar changes, with proposed modifications including partners taking a 20% cut in profit shares for a reduced workload.

"We are definitely starting to address this issue, but it is crucial to do so in a tactful way which all partners can agree on," says one practice leader at Linklaters. "The lockstep is a part of our history and modifying it could create a lot of fallout."

There is mounting evidence of firms struggling to live up to the brutal realities of lockstep as older partners struggle to maintain the physical demands made of top-earning partners. Linklaters in December announced a shake-up of its partnership expected to result in 40 partner departures and additional de-equitisations. The move is the third major shake-up of its partnership in a decade.

Meanwhile, A&O and Clifford Chance (CC) announced major restructurings of their partnerships three years ago, which between them led to the departure of more than 100 partners. Fellow lockstep firm Ashurst has also seen a substantial number of partner exits over the last two years, while Herbert Smith is expected to manage out at least 15 partners in the current financial year, in part to deal with the number of high earners on its equity ladder.

Critics of the corrosive impact of lockstep often point out that US law firms, which typically use widely varying meritocratic models, have generally done better at utilising older partners without damaging profitability.

It is not hard to see why an increasing number of industry observers believe that rigid lockstep models, particularly those without discretionary gateways or a means of reducing partner earnings, are increasingly in conflict with the needs – not to mention biological realties – of many partners' working lives.

Entering the citadel

If the economic realities of the law firm model make life hard for those retiring from the partnership, at least as daunting are the cultural factors that can mean senior lawyers struggle to pursue careers in the business world.

For one, law attracts academically-minded individuals less comfortable with the risk-taking commercial world – probably inevitable for a profession charged with managing risk.

Trainee intakes typically move from Russell Group universities to legal institutions, which have heavily structured career paths. Large law firms, of course, also provide well-resourced back-office operations and infrastructure to support – and arguably insulate – the professional lives of practitioners.

More recent shifts in the profession have in some respects aggravated this distance. The huge expansion of specialisation in legal practice over the last 25 years has helped to frame senior lawyers in the minds of business people as technical specialists. The practice over the same period of stopping partners from holding outside directorships is felt by many to have had a similar, marginalising impact on the role of lawyers.

As such, it is telling that many senior lawyers talk of the shock – and sense of bereavement, even – that accompanies stepping outside the citadels of their law firms. "Those lawyers who have kept their nose to the grindstone and advised clients on a relatively niche area of law are the ones that are most at risk," says partnership adviser Richard Turnor, of Maurice Turnor Gardner. "Within a large commercial law firm, it is very common to have been exposed to a small number of clients throughout one's career. This makes a transition into other careers more difficult."

Learning to 
fend for yourself

Given the cultural hurdles that prevent partners from moving into a fulfilling career after the law, advisers, and those lawyers who have been through it, agree that preparation is essential one year before retirement at the bare minimum, with many advising a two-year-plus career plan. Indeed, there is a sense that veteran partners need to go through a process of teaching themselves to fend outside their established environment.

"Under the current system, the odds are against senior lawyers trying to make the transition," says Heidrick & Struggles partner and former Lovells veteran Marc Bartel. "It is up to each individual to take the initiative and look around for other roles several years before retirement. It is important for partners to choose a route that suits them as an individual, and this requires quite a bit of research.

"The first step is to get the message out there that you are looking," continues Bartel. "Let people know what you are interested in doing and what you expect in terms in remuneration. If people think that you would not consider taking a pay cut, they will not contact you."

Applying this approach, Hogan Lovells co-chair John Young, whose retirement is scheduled for April, sent out an email recently to his entire book of contacts announcing that he is on the market.

"I am not (yet) planning total idleness following my retirement," the email reads. "I am principally seeking out non-executive directorships in the insurance industry, with a view to putting both my long immersion in that industry and my management experience to good continuing use. I am also planning to take on some similar positions in the not-for-profit world. If you hear of any opportunities please do let me know!"

A key method for partners to acclimatise themselves for a life outside law is to take on roles in the voluntary sector to establish the skills that will mark them out as more than technical specialists.

Partners also need to consider if they hope to maintain a part-time consultancy role with their firm, which can help them maintain contacts that will be useful in their wider careers outside the law.

Many recommend also taking on roles with schools, or trustee roles in non-for-profit organisations. Former Freshfields veteran Anthony Salz, for example, had already taken a place on the board of governors at the BBC before announcing his resignation as the magic circle firm's senior partner in March 2006, positioning him to take on the acting chairman role when Michael Grade resigned as chair later that year. Since leaving Freshfields, Salz has taken on trustee roles for a range of organisations, including the Royal Opera House, chairing the Eden Project and becoming a member of the advisory board of Exeter University's School of Business. Salz says the BBC position opened the way to win other roles.

Former Simmons & Simmons senior partner Bill Knight, meanwhile, has taken on a school governor role and became a member of the Refugee Council Leadership Board, among other roles.

There is wide consensus that such roles play well to lawyers' skills and are an excellent way of helping veteran practitioners to both develop their skillsets and CVs outside a strictly legal context.

Several organisations have been set up in this regard – for example the International Senior Lawyers Project, which focuses on matching retired lawyers looking for new opportunities with a variety of volunteer projects.

Another notable adviser is Praesta Partners, an executive coaching business. The firm has carved out a name for advising in this area since recruiting Bill Knight, who has been a vocal proponent of the need for partners to be proactive in developing their post-law careers.

Another outfit highlighted is Manchester Square Partners, a business that works with boards and directors, whose advisers include former Freshfields chief executive Hugh Crisp.

Also cited is IDDAS, a coaching and advisory business for boards and executives, with director and mentor Jonathan Cohen being well regarded (the firm also maintains a 'legal mentor' roster that includes former Simmons & Simmons senior partner Janet Gaymer (pictured), ex-Linklaters chief executive Terence Kyle and 
legal veteran Francis Neate).

Other ways of expanding career networks outside a legal context are also welcome, with some recommending working with or taking roles attached to major business schools such as Said Business School or Cranfield School of Management.

Once a partner has taken time to seek career advice, consider their potential post-law career path and begin relevant networking, they have to be disciplined in what work they take on. Crisp comments: "Hone your polite refusal skills – your time can get filled up surprisingly quickly, and it can be awkward to withdraw from a role that turns out not to be right for you."

Aside from factoring in several years to plan and build relevant contacts, there is agreement that partners need to be brutally realistic about just how much resistance there will be when moving into a commercial role. Non-executive directorships at large companies are notorious for being a closed door to lawyers, with boards typically regarding lawyers as technical advisers whose skills they can buy in. "This is a complete caricature and does not reflect reality," says Salz. "Lawyers are commercially-aware individuals who have been exposed to a wide range of businesses throughout their careers."

Bill Knight agrees. "It's up 
to lawyers to change this perception – the important thing is getting the word out that lawyers are great additions to boards. They have analytical skills and are able to adapt quickly to difficult situations."

But fair or not, the huge difficulties of securing non-executive positions with major companies mean that lawyers intent on that path should be prepared to build up substantial relevant experience and contacts well before retirement.

Career paths 
and role models

With an established wave of high-profile practitioners who have gone on to take prominent roles after the law, there are now more role models emerging for retiring partners and potential paths to follow. One arena in which lawyers find they can use their analytical skills is in public service.

Perhaps the most prominent example of this is Janet Gaymer, who in 2006 became the Commissioner for Public Appointments in England and Wales and a Civil Service Commissioner. "I saw the role advertised in The Sunday Times," Gaymer remembers. "I had known for a while that I would be leaving the firm after my management term came to an end, and this seemed a perfect opportunity."

Having spent four years in the role, Gaymer decided to move on and promptly accepted the opportunity to co-chair a consultation steering panel tasked with overseeing the Legal Education and Training Review, set up by the three legal regulators in the autumn of 2010. (Gaymer still undertakes some employment work and maintains a number of roles.)

"The transition was relatively natural for me, although Simmons didn't traditionally encourage its partners to start looking for roles outside of the firm. I made sure that the roles I took on were interlinked and that they corresponded to my interests," she adds.

Other prominent examples include Gaymer's former colleague Bill Knight (pictured), who chairs the Financial Reporting Review Panel, and former CC corporate partner Sonya Branch, who quit the law to take on a role as senior director in markets, projects and goods at the Office of Fair Trading.

A number of senior lawyers have moved into consultancy or advisory businesses, either linked to the law or in outside contexts. These tend to be niche operations, though; there remains limited appetite from the larger bluechip consultancy businesses to recruit former lawyers. David Barnard, former head of Linklaters' US law practice, is one example. Having retired in 1999 after 19 years as a partner at the magic circle firm, he set up Blaqwell, a consultancy advising law firms on how to expand outside of their domestic market. Barnard runs the boutique with a number of former lawyers from Linklaters, as well as several former McKinsey & Company consultants.

A rarer career choice is to move into a senior role in finance. Salz joined Rothschild as executive vice chair in 2006, while Guy Beringer, the former senior partner at A&O, is on the board of Fleming Family & Partners.

There is also a small but growing number of veteran lawyers that have moved into direct commercial roles in finance – a path that has for years been relatively well established in the US.

Last year CC senior partner Stuart Popham took on a prominent role as Citigroup vice chairman of EMEA banking while Linklaters senior partner David Cheyne took on a newly-created role as vice chairman of EMEA investment banking at boutique advisory house Moelis & Company.

"The transition was not easy. I'm Clifford Chance through and through, and finding my feet in a different institution was kind of like being the new boy again," muses Popham. "To ease the transition I took my personal assistant with me – the fact that she is familiar with my habits has been comforting."

Cheyne (pictured), meanwhile, has retained a consultant role with Linklaters for one day a week, spending three days a week in his role at Moelis. This position sees Cheyne fostering new and existing client relationships and providing strategic guidance and legal advice on deals. "Long before retirement I knew that I wanted to continue doing deals," he says. "Transactional work has always been my passion and I wasn't ready to stop. I chose the role at Moelis because it allowed me to continue doing just that."

A comparable path was blazed by ex-CC managing partner Peter Cornell, who in 2007 took on a prominent role as managing director in charge of stakeholder relations at buyout house Terra Firma after leaving his 36-year at career in law.

Last year Cornell joined new launch fund provider Metric Capital, which is chaired by ex-Deloitte chairman John Connolly. Cornell, who is also a non-executive director of Circle Holdings and a member of the international advisory board at Madrid Business School, joined the new fund as a partner and head of investor relations.

Cornell warns lawyers thinking about careers in business not to underestimate the huge challenge in the UK compared to other jurisdictions, but argues that there are many ways that the skills of commercial lawyers fit within the private equity industry. He also cautions those considering careers in finance not wait too long.

However, while there is developing scope for City partners to take on non-executive roles or even front-office briefs in finance, by consensus such avenues largely remain open only to the most senior and well-connected M&A and finance partners and prominent law firm leaders.

The lack of open doors for commercial lawyers is perhaps one reason why some partners choose to launch their own ventures that fulfil personal goals or passions. One interesting example is that of Richard Slater, the former head of banking at Slaughters, who, upon retiring from law, set up his own photography business.

The law firm response

If there is a huge onus on individual partners to take their post-law careers in their own hands, many argue that law firms should take more proactive steps to help partners find fulfilling careers outside the law. "One of the biggest challenges is that partners simply do not have the time to prepare for the transition," says Crisp. "It is at this junction that law firms should make allowances and give partners a bit more leeway to prepare for a future career."

Perhaps the most developed initiative is from Ashurst, which has been running a series of one-day workshops dubbed 'Life Outside Ashurst' for all partners aged over 45 with Praesta Partners (see feature, page 23). The firm has encouraged partners to take on external roles and amended its partner performance review to acknowledge experience gained in this way. Nearly 50 partners have been through the programme – 25 partners at the firm now hold non-executive or trustee roles.

"The important thing is to get some of your star performers on board so that there is no stigma attached," comments Ashurst senior partner Charlie Geffen. "Once all the partners are on board, you start to see the value it brings to the firm both immediately and in the future when partners retire."

But while there is little doubt that many firms have introduced flexibility into their remuneration policies and career paths, there is little evidence yet that this is translating into better succession planning and support for retiring partners. Certainly, there is a feeling that the law is way behind the accountancy profession (see box, page 16) despite having greater need to 'retrain' legal specialists for the outside world.

Arguably, recent developments in the legal industry have made this need more pressing. The corporatised model of the large law firm, backed by sophisticated client relationship programmes and actively managed partnerships, has proved commercially successful. But, as with the experience of female lawyers at commercial law firms, the model is increasingly coming into conflict with the realities and needs of older partners.

"Business continuity and exit strategies should be at the forefront of any law firm manager's mind," says Knight. "It is in the best interest of the law firm to provide incentives for partners to think about life after partnership or to mentor younger lawyers."

Beyond the issue of succession planning and ensuring smooth client service, law firms should think about the fact that, although a partner may have left their institution, he or she could remain an ambassador for the firm in their future careers.

Some advisers also contend that the blanket ban on partners taking outside roles, which is relatively unusual compared to other jurisdictions, has been wielded as an excessively blunt instrument and is an outdated product of a period in which consolidating law firms were fearful of conflicts.

Tina Williams (pictured), senior partner at Fox Williams who advises on partnership law and remuneration issues, comments: "Obviously it is in a law firm's interest to encourage partners to keep their noses to the grindstone. In many cases, conflicts can be managed and law firm leaders should be taking a long-term view about how such roles could benefit their firm."

Much of the problem is a relative short-termism among law firms. The number of people flocking to law and the competitiveness of the industry mean the immediate incentives remain skewed towards pushing out older partners rather than encouraging constructive support.

Yet this attitude and model has imposed a cost on the legal profession. In recent years lawyers have lauded their more commercial outlook, yet the modern law firm model has moved partners away from pursuing careers as generalist practitioners who were as often in demand for their experience and judgement as their technical legal knowledge. "There are a few notable individuals who have successfully made the transition, but these still represent a minority," reflects Knight. "This lack of success at getting into commercial roles is a poor advertisement for the supposedly business-centric City law firm."

The relative lack of lawyers in commercial roles has also helped to keep the legal profession contained within a 'ghetto' of business life, an image which often flies in the face of lawyers' actual skillset or the business achievements of those in the UK legal profession.

"Firms are starting to look at this issue, but a long-term cultural shift in the industry is needed to alleviate these issues," argues Ashurst's Geffen. "More importantly, individual law firms will have to create incentives for partners to look beyond the law with a view to easing the transition into post-law careers."

Yet, for the foreseeable future, partners approaching retirement would be unwise to put too much stock in help from their firms. The stark choice is to constructively face up to life outside the legal citadel or face a long and frustrating retirement.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Older partners – a litigation risk?

The flurry of media comment that accompanied the removal of the default retirement age last year brought predictions that a significant tranche of ageism claims would emanate from senior lawyers even though equity partners are generally outside the scope of the law.

Yet so far age-related claims have been few and far between. The notable exception is that launched by Clarkson Wright & Jakes partner Leslie Seldon, who in 2008 began a long-running age discrimination claim when he was forced to retire from his partnership aged 65.

Although the case is still pending (it was heard in the Supreme Court last month), employment specialists are sceptical as to whether Seldon has a realistic chance of success. "There is certainly widespread and growing concern about the outcome of this case, particularly because there is no precedent in the UK of a partner winning such a claim," comments Fox Lawyers' Ronnie Fox.

The lack of litigation may be due to the failure of a previous high-profile attempt – the 2007 claim launched against Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. The employment tribunal claim was launched by former restructuring partner Peter Bloxham in relation to a partnership restructuring at the City giant.

Bloxham claimed that the overhaul had forced him to retire aged 54 and accept a 20% discount on the six-figure annual pension he had expected. He claimed this was discriminatory in comparison with partners aged 55, who could retire with the full entitlement.

Freshfields disputed this and won the case. The tribunal was satisfied that the firm's pension reforms were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and that therefore the age discrimination was justified. Many argued that the extensive research and consultation that had been undertaken before the pension reforms were implemented were crucial to successfully defending the claim.

The outlook is different in the US, where tougher discrimination laws have been established for decades and a number of law firms have had age-related cases pursued again them, most notably a case that saw Sidley Austin pay a settlement of $27.5m (£17m) relating to its treatment of 32 former partners. "What is needed in the UK is a similar case so that British law firms become more aware of the problem and begin to adjust their retirement policies," argues Fox.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Ahead of the curve – how the accountancy firms do it

By Rose Orlik

Accountancy firms are traditionally seen as well ahead of the legal profession when it comes to managing retirement, with the larger firms often providing a host of schemes to help senior staff transfer to life outside the partnership. Their efforts must be viewed as paying off, given the clutch of non-executive directorships frequently held by ex-accountants.

Official retirement ages vary across the top accountancy firms, with PricewaterhouseCooper's (PwC's) "normal retirement date" set at 60, while Deloitte and KPMG have no official date and tend to see departures between the ages of 55 and 60.

As the largest accountancy firm in the UK, PwC kicks off its support programme with a 'survival course' for those in their 40s, described by one retiree as a "health and lifestyle MOT". In their early 50s, partners attend Running the Rest of Your Life, a course covering career and financial planning, health and the emotional impact of retirement.

PwC director of partner admissions and development Gillian Windett (pictured) comments: "We recognise retirement as a major transition for partners, some of whom have spent their entire careers with the firm. Our partners are ambassadors for the firm, no matter what stage of their career they are at. It makes sense from both of our perspectives to support partners in their transition to retirement and acknowledge the value they have brought to the firm."

KPMG offers partners a 'retirement review' before the age of 55, discussing options and helping individuals think through the challenges and opportunities of life after accountancy. A spokesman said the firm is currently trying to build in more advanced discussions and bolster support.

However, senior accountants still need to work to build portfolio careers. For example, former KPMG partner and head of its India practice, Gautam Dalal, has cultivated a portfolio of non-executive roles, sitting on the boards of The National Gallery and the School of Oriental and African Studies, the medical charity African Medical and Research Foundation and an AIM-listed company.

"I began looking for other opportunities a few years before my retirement," he says. "You definitely have to begin thinking about it ahead of time. My roles take up around three days per week, but I am still looking for one or two other commercial positions."

Philip Wright, former PwC partner in charge of services to non-executive directors, comments: "There is an obvious place for partners as an audit committee chair, who is required to hold an accountancy qualification under the Corporate Governance Code. Finance backgrounds do seem a more obvious fit for non-executive directorships, but lawyers absolutely have special strengths to offer non-legal organisations." Wright, who is a non-executive director of Barts and the London NHS Trust, also sits on the board of two charity social enterprises and is chairman of start-up company Digital Theatre.

But while not all former accountants walk into such illustrious roles, ex-big four partners do tend to cultivate a greater range of retirement posts than lawyers. One veteran accountant claims this is because accountants "come much closer to the business", whereas lawyers, while offering advice, "never really cross the line". A former partner with a large UK accountancy firm agrees that retiring lawyers are not seen as a natural fit by companies with a non-executive vacancy, adding: "This is why it's crucial to start early and accept that you need to do work outside the firm in order to improve your experience."

• Click here for more from the in depth feature on life after law