Previously we noted an important ET decision which upheld a compulsory retirement age of 65 at a law firm. Given that this decision has prompted many law firms to think about amending their partnership deeds to provide for compulsory retirement, it is relevant to look at that decision in some detail. In particular, these were the aims that were held to be legitimate (and so justified):

• To ensure that associates were given the opportunity of partnership after a reasonable period (to encourage their retention).
• To facilitate the planning of the partnership and workforce across individual departments, by having realistic long-term expectations as to when vacancies will arise.
• To limit the need to expel partners by way of performance management, thus contributing to a congenial and supportive culture within the firm.

Note that the last of these was very much confined to that type of firm, which did not have the power to expel partners for underperformance. Many other firms that take a more aggressive, eat-what-you-kill approach would simply not be able to sustain that as a legitimate aim.

Aims that were not approved by the tribunal as being legitimate included:

• Ensuring a turnover of partners so that each partner could expect to be senior partner in due course. This was disallowed as being age-related.
• To enable and encourage employees and partners to make financial provision for retirement. This was disallowed because there was no evidence to support this being an aim.

What is clear is that considerable thought is needed before drafting these provisions in a partnership deed. There is no point in putting fanciful aims that are simply not justified by the evidence and culture of the firm. For an introduction see [ 2008] 89 Employment Law Journal 9; Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2007] ET/1100275/2007. © Practical Lawyer