Kirkland & Ellis’s recent change to its mandatory retirement process has spotlighted how Am Law 100/200 firms are rethinking the role of senior partners.
Kirkland has not eliminated or increased its mandatory retirement age, which remains 65. Instead, the firm changed who decides whether a partner may continue practicing beyond that age. Under its revised partnership agreement, the firm’s 20-member executive committee now has authority to grant extensions. Previously, a partner seeking an extension needed the approval of at least half of Kirkland’s global partnership.
That distinction is important. The change is not about retirement age alone—it is about governance, flexibility, and the ability of firm leadership to make strategic decisions regarding individual partners.
Based on my conversations with firms and senior lateral partners, mandatory retirement policies across the Am Law 100 generally fall into five categories:
I. Strict Mandatory Retirement—No Exceptions
A small number of firms apply a fixed retirement age without exceptions for either current partners or lateral candidates.
II. Mandatory Retirement for Current Partners—Strategic Waivers for Laterals
Some firms enforce retirement requirements for existing partners but will consider waivers for lateral partners whose practices, legal skills, geographic reach, or client ecosystems address an important strategic need.
III. Mandatory Retirement With a Transition or “Rolling” Component
These firms begin the retirement process several years before a partner’s required departure. The partner may transition from equity status, reduce responsibilities, or begin transferring client relationships to more junior partners. When managed well, this approach can support succession planning while preserving important client relationships.
IV. Mandatory Retirement With Case-by-Case Waivers
Some firms maintain a designated retirement age but permit firm leadership to grant individual extensions. These firms generally apply the same discretionary process to existing partners and lateral candidates.
V. No Mandatory Retirement Age
A smaller group of Am Law 100 firms has no fixed mandatory retirement age. Partners may continue practicing as long as they remain productive and their practices align with the firm’s business objectives.
As a recruiter working with senior partners, I believe this is an important inflection point for the Am Law 100/200. Senior partners can bring extensive client relationships, historical performance metrics, leadership experience, industry knowledge, and highly developed legal skills. Many also move with lawyers they have mentored, bringing a built-in succession plan to their new firm.
Kirkland’s change reflects the increasing importance of flexibility. At a time when firms compete intensely for elite talent and expand strategic practices and offices, a rigid retirement policy can affect retention, succession planning, and lateral recruiting.
The larger question is no longer simply, “What is the firm’s mandatory retirement age?” Partners and firms must also ask:
Who has the authority to grant an extension? What criteria will leadership apply? Does the policy distinguish between existing and lateral partners? Is there a structured transition process? How will the firm preserve client relationships and institutional knowledge?
These questions are becoming an increasingly important part of lateral partner conversations—and I expect mandatory retirement policies to continue evolving as firms balance generational transition with the enduring value of experience.
Gloria Sandrino is Managing Principal and Co-Chair of the Partner Practice at Lateral Link, where she leads high-level recruiting initiatives for law firm partners and practice groups across the United States and London.
