One question that has arisen is whether it is now unlawful to have a specified retirement age for all partners. Prima facie, such a clause would seem to fall foul of the new Regs (in force since 1 October). But, do remember that it is still possible to discriminate against a partner on grounds of age if it can be objectively justified. Accordingly, the imposition of a retirement age will have to be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (eg maintaining the growth and profitability of the firm). Whether it is ‘proportionate’ will, in part, depend on the other means adopted towards the same end (with performance being monitored, and clear performancerelated criteria being set out). But, a correspondent in the Gazette suggests that retention of retirement provisions in partnership agreements will probably be warranted for the vast majority of partnerships. The key is good succession planning and the argument will be that no firm can expect to attract and retain talent if career progression is blocked or limited by a body of ageing partners. The imposition of an arbitrary retirement age, which is unsupported by strategic planning and management practises, will undoubtedly leave law firms open to challenge. But, if there is a sound business justification (backed up by consistent performance criteria) then a fixed retirement age may be justifiable. See [2006] LSG 7 September 10; 21 September 17. © Practical Lawyer