Rules were intended to make way for younger lawyers
A former equity partner at a large regional law firm has won an employment tribunal claim after being forced to retire at 63.
Martin Scott had worked at Leeds firm Walker Morris since 1990, becoming an equity partner in 1997, but was forced to retire after passing over 60 years of age.
The tribunal heard that the firm had a policy of making partners aged over 60 reapply to stay on at the firm in order to target “intergenerational fairness” and the need to provide progression opportunities to younger partners.
Whilst Scott was successful in his first application to remain at the firm after showing that he would make an “exceptional contribution”, he was unable to do so a few years later, the firm claimed. He was therefore forced out of the firm at just 63.
The employment tribunal sided with Scott, finding that had he been aged under 60 he would not have been subjected to the same treatment. The refusal of both the Walker Morris board and partners to grant the renewed application amounted, therefore, to less favourable treatment because of age.
It went on to decide that the policy was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. There was no evidence, the tribunal said, that the firm needed to free up equity in order to give progression opportunities to younger partners, with the outfit unable to identify anyone who had left due to a perceived lack of progression.
The firm’s former managing partner’s suggestion that “the performance of many, or even most partners begins to decline in the latter years of their career” was “not supported by any documentary or objective evidence. It was entirely anecdotal and based upon his personal beliefs and perception”, the tribunal added. There was equally no evidence that partner performance was an issue at the firm.
A remedy hearing will follow.
In a statement, Walker Morris said: “We are disappointed by the findings of the employment tribunal and will be considering our response.”
“In common with other professional services firms, our partnership has agreed rules covering the retirement of partners which we follow in a full and fair manner. These rules were intended to open-up partnership opportunities for future generations.”
“Mr Scott voted in favour of changes to our retirement rules and indeed benefitted from them when his retirement date was extended in 2020,” the firm continued.
For reference, judges have a mandatory retirement age of 75. State pensions are only accessible from 66, with a rule change set to raise this up to 67 and then 68.
(
(
