Lawyers Fall Victim to Age Discrimination
OK. I admit to having practiced law for many years. I left the profession about 13 years ago, before too much permanent brain damage set in. I remain, however, an inactive member of the State Bar of California, although I’m no longer living in California. Thus, I receive the California State Bar Journal each month. Normally, I just toss it, but this month something caught my eye.
In the July, 2007 edition, the feature article is entitled “Growing, and graying, attorney population hits retirement age“. It seems that, as of 2006, 35% of California lawyers are over 55, up from 14% in 1991. What struck me, though, was the extent to which lawyers, even senior partners in law firms, are falling victim to age discrimination.
Traditionally, law firms have had a patriarchal structure in which older partners transition into managing, commonly remaining in that capacity in perpetuity. All that is changing.
As an example, the Los Angeles County Bar Association President is quoted with a story about a friend who was billing $600 and hour for his firm with scores of clients and who felt he deserved to take a little leisure time. He was told that he would have to continue billing 2,000 hours a year if he wanted to stay. He chose to leave.
Today, some firms are simply giving partners reaching 65 the boot without offering any choice. Often the bad news comes from those who have been close associates for many years. This shift suggests that patriarchal direction is being look at as old-fashioned, ineffective and anachronistic.
If there’s a culprit here, it’s what the profession calls “billable hours”. When I first began in the profession, no one tossed that term around. What’s happened over the last few decades is that law firms have become law factories. Many years ago, a corporate lawyer billing 1,500 annually was considered the norm. These days it’s 2,000 hours and some firms demand $2,200, even from senior members. This leads to many older lawyers being forced to continue performing at these draconian levels, or to drop out.
Some in the older crowd are not going easily. A group of 32 ousted by a large Chicago law firm have persuaded the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a lawsuit on their behalf. They allege that they were involuntarily downgraded or forced to retire. While it’s clear that employees of the firm would be covered by the anti-discrimination laws, the issue is whether they apply, as well, to law firm partners. A conclusion is anticipated this summer.
One thing I know to be true about attorneys. Identity and career are critical to how they feel about themselves and interact with others. Being told they are dead weight does not go down well. Moreover, there’s the perception that they’re being pushed out so that younger lawyers can take a larger slices of pies in million dollar plus proportions.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Illinois EEOC proceeding. More about age discrimination in the legal profession will be revealed.
Tags: age, Age Discrimination, aging population, Aging Process, Anti Aging, Baby Boomers, senior citizens, seniors
