Retire at 50? Many Firms Offer Early Option, But Few Match O’Melveny’s

Law Firms

Retire at 50? Many Firms Offer Early Option, But Few Match O’Melveny’s

Posted Mar 13, 2008, 06:10 am CDT

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Corrected: Many law firms offer early retirements to boost profits per partner, but few are setting the floor at age 50, as O'Melveny & Myers recently did.

The law firm made a temporary buyout offer to partners over age 50, and Masood Sohaili is taking advantage of it to jump to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Other lawyers have buyout requests pending with the firm, sources told the Recorder.

William Nason of Watanabe Nason Schwartz & Lippman in Los Angeles told the Recorder he’s not surprised at the buyout offer, but he is surprised at the age. "They haven't pioneered this theory, though going at it at age 50 is a little younger than most," he said.

O'Melveny also offered an early retirement buyout several years ago, but the age was higher. Typically partners can retire at the firm with full benefits at age 65 or partial benefits at age 55.

Many law firms have lowered early retirement to age 55 or 60, according to legal consultant Peter Zeughauser. Many are looking at voluntary rather than forced retirement after the EEOC, on behalf of demoted partners at Sidley Austin, sued for age discrimination, he told the Recorder. A settlement reportedly paid an average of $859,375 per attorney.

Corrected on March 14 to note that it was the EEOC who brought suit on behalf of demoted Sidley partners.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Scott - 4 months, 5 days, 21 hours, 27 minutes ago

It doesn’t surprise me that O’Melveny would resort to such blatant age discrimination. What is more important, however, is what this means for those who may think they are “safe” because they aren’t (yet) too old to be of any use to O’Melveny. What this signals is a complete and total destruction of the idea that lawyers are “professionals” with an ethical obligation to safeguard the health of their “profession”. Lawyers now --- this is what O’Melveny is saying --- are fungible commodities and are valuable only insofar as they make the “partners” or “shareholders” an obscene amount of money. Law firms like O’Melveny are no longer professional organizations devoted to earning a good living while advancing social justice and ethics. Such firms are simply corporate cash generators, and it would not make matter to their “owners” if the money they make came from selling hamburgers. All they want is the money. That is the message here.
Posted by David - 4 months, 5 days, 20 hours, 54 minutes ago

I agree with Scott. Unfortunately big firms decided 15 or more years ago that lawyers are fungible and that professionalism no longer matters. There is a cadre of non-working, full time former lawyers who serve as managers at the top of most big law firms. The sole goal of these no longer practising lawyers is to retain power and increase their income.
Posted by A.E. Newman - 4 months, 5 days, 19 hours, 58 minutes ago

Hey guys, welcome to the US; believe it or not there is nothing inherently unethical in making money. If you want “social justice and ethics” go be a public defender or work for the ACLU.
Posted by Ira - 4 months, 5 days, 19 hours, 45 minutes ago

Someday, everyone will accept certain fundamental truths like individuals are not monogamous and the mind starts to deteriorate after age 50. The body starts to deteriorate even sooner. O’Melveny is doing their younger partners, their clients, and their over-50 lawyers a great favor with this program.
Posted by James - 4 months, 5 days, 19 hours, 25 minutes ago

Having finally reached age 50, I would like to work for O’Melveny. They refused to interview me when I was in law school (my school wasn’t prestigous enough) so I won’t give them the privilege of firing me. But I’ll take the money. Disagree on the mind deterioration and anti-monogamy theories. Some of us are just pig-headed. My professional skills are much better and in more demand than ever and I long to return to marital bliss (in April). If my practice could be done in a small or boutique firm, I’d do it tomorrow. I put up with the big firm only because the practice area I love the most demands these kinds of resources for clients. I live in a mid-market town so that money isn’t as good as it is at O’Melveny. Again, they only need to send me the check. It would save them time.
Posted by R - 4 months, 5 days, 17 hours, 44 minutes ago

I respectfully disagree with you, Ira. My mind is deteriorating as I approach 50, but physically I’ve never been better. I’m ready to start that second career as a part-time Starbucks barista (if I can just keep “venti”, “grande” and “tall” straight).
Posted by John G - 4 months, 5 days, 17 hours, 28 minutes ago

Does the desirability of this offer depend on the working conditions of those who refuse, i.e. who choose to stay on at O’Melveny? If the over-50 folks at the firm are not discriminated against, then it seems to me just a nice way to cash out equity in the firm in preparation for work elsewhere - perhaps with an understanding that the pressures will be heavy if one stays (legitimate pressures not discriminatory ones), so here’s an option.

It also dispenses with (some of) the need to value wisdom apart from billings, for the firm, because those whose value might come from more than dollars directly on the bottom line won’t be there to make such a claim. One could discuss whether that is a good thing or short-sighted.
Posted by William - 4 months, 5 days, 16 hours, 19 minutes ago

One firm in the recent past offered a buyout to associates thinking it would avoid the bad publicity of layoffs and still trim the fat--the result?...the good associates the firm wanted to keep took the money and lateraled out while the ones most likely for a pink slip stayed. Have to wonder if astute O’Melveny partners will see the opportunity this way too.
Posted by stupified - 4 months, 4 days, 5 hours, 54 minutes ago

I’m suprised people at 50 aren’t making more than $850K per year?

Means to me, you’re in the wrong profession! (That’s why they’re offering the buyout! To get rid of the dead weight and losers and to allow the firm to grow!)

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Law Firms