ILNews

Planning prevents potholes in road to retirement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The website of solo practitioner Jim Roth is topped with the headline: “Retiring to a Good Cup of Coffee.”

A Social Security disability attorney in Lafayette, Roth stopped taking new cases, transitioned his clients to other lawyers, and closed his office in the fall of 2013, about the time he turned 70.

He was admitted to the bar in 1977 and began practicing actively in 1984. The adrenaline rush that came from arguing a claim before a judge was something he enjoyed, but the 120-mile round trips to hearings coupled with the work days that kept him reading fat files until 1 or 2 a.m. finally made him tired enough to quit practicing law.

“It just seemed like at that point it was time to spend more time with my family and develop other interests and take care of some things at home,” Roth said.

By its nature, practicing law is not a physically demanding profession that over time wears on a body. But it can require so much time and attention that attorneys neglect developing hobbies and social connections. Consequently, when an attorney hits the traditional retirement age, he or she may skip retiring altogether, opting to continue working or slowly slide into post-career life by paring down the practice.

But, as the economy improves and retirement accounts recover, Indiana may be on the verge of seeing more attorneys retire. According to the Indiana State Bar Association, 2,260 members are age 65 and older while another 2,608 are 55 to 64 years old.

Roth, chair of the ISBA’s senior lawyer section, said his colleagues talk often about retirement, and other attorneys have quizzed him about how he left the law.

The process of retiring, the nuts and bolts of how to exit a legal practice, is as important for attorneys as saving for retirement and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

“A lot of lawyers practice until they die,” said Terry Harrell, executive director of the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. “I guess that works for some of us, but many want a good plan” for retirement.

Succession planning

With so many baby boomers nearing retirement, said Alan Levin, managing partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, law firms would be remiss if they did not transition senior attorneys in a thoughtful and methodical manner.

“It’s important to plan not only for the clients but to have a smooth transition for the firm too,” Levin said.

A survey recently released by the legal consulting firm Altman Weil Inc. found 49 percent of the law firms it contacted had an informal succession planning process. Another 27 percent told the consultants they had a formal process in place, while 24 percent said they were either working on a succession plan or had no process in place.

Altman Weil recommended law firms tread a middle path, advising against having a rigid, inflexible succession process as well as against having no consistent process. An unbending plan could induce partners to defect to other firms. No process puts the firm at risk for liability if a lawyer practices too long and loses mental acuity.

Barnes & Thornburg does not have mandatory retirement, but it does require senior attorneys to step down from their partnership positions at a certain age. This, Levin said, allows the firm to start the retirement discussion and craft a plan on a case-by-case basis that makes sure the senior attorney’s files are passed along to the other attorneys in the firm who have the right skills and relationships with the clients.

In the past two years, three partners at the New Albany firm Lorch Naville Ward LLC retired. One left the practice of law completely and the other two moved into part-time positions at the office.

“We don’t have a formal retirement policy in our firm,” said partner Linda Lorch. “Basically, for the partner that wants to make a change, we tend to create some pathway with what they want to do.”

The partners remaining at the firm admired the way their colleague, Sally Thomas, wound down her legal career. Thomas developed a year-and-a-half plan in which she listed specific dates for each milestone in closing her practice, culminating with the exact day she would no long be coming to work.

Lorch and most of the other partners all started practicing in the 1980s and, today, often have casual conversations about retirement. Among their concerns is bringing in new blood so, as Lorch explained, the younger attorneys are not surrounded by old folks. The partners also want to ensure the firm has the expertise needed to continue covering the practice areas currently offered so the younger attorneys will be able to sustain the business with new clients.

Hard to say ‘good-bye’

The Altman Weil survey found the biggest obstacle to succession planning was senior partners who did not want to retire. Seventy-eight percent of the firms responding said their senior partners had no interest in getting the gold watch while 73 percent said their older attorneys were hesitant to retire because they did not want to forfeit their current compensation.

Two factors are commonly highlighted as reasons why attorneys do not retire. The first is finances – the economic downturn dwarfed many retirement savings accounts. The second is the challenge of finding things to do when there is no long a client to meet or motion to file.

Kevin McGoff, of counsel at Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, heard about the difficulty of quitting the law from an older attorney who once told him, “You can’t get out of this business.”

The decision to cut back to 20 hours of work a week can creep to 40 and 50 hours. Still, McGoff sees ways for senior attorneys to slow down by transitioning to mentoring and supervising rather than actively working on cases.

Years prior to their retirement, the senior attorneys could involve younger partners or associates in their cases, taking them to client meetings and having the younger attorney handle more and more of the client’s work.

For law firms, the consequence of a poorly executed succession process, McGoff said, is the clients may transition their business elsewhere when the senior attorney retires.

Both at JLAP and as chair of the American Bar Association Commission on Lawyer Assistance Program’s committee on senior lawyers, Harrell has been studying the issue of attorney retirement. She estimated 50 percent of Indiana attorneys who are of retirement age and financially able to quit are staying in practice because they do not know what else to do.

Attorneys who are 35 or 40 years old should plan not only for the monetary aspects of retirement but also for the social and emotional part, she said. Usually lawyers say the intellectual stimulation is what they like best about the law, but finding things that provide the same level of engagement, whether a hobby, a volunteer organization or new friends, can be difficult as a senior citizen.

Roth confessed that he did not have many outside interests when he retired. He goes more often to his vacation cottage where he spends time fishing and he helps his wife with chores around the house.

Although he has retained his law license and continues taking CLE courses to keep his status active, he does not intend to reopen his practice.

“That part of my life is over,” Roth said of his legal career, “and this part of my life is family, community and recreation.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT