Mature student job prospects and ageism

[GreyDude]

A man in his sixties shows up with a freshly minted law degree and wants work. He is either looking for articles or has just passed the bar and is seeking his first "real" law job. Let's assume that this boomer graduated with decent grades (neither a star nor a schmuck). Let's also assume that he had a long and successful career in a completely different field before leaving it to attend LS.

What are his prospects? How do potential employers see him, and how should he approach them ? What should he have been doing during his three years in LS to make this moment easier? If you are the person doing the hiring, what are you looking for on the CV? 

Are there certain kinds of positions or certain areas of law where he is more likely to have success?

I'm deliberately keeping this somewhat open-ended, so if you choose to answer please feel free to go in whatever direction you think works. Obviously, few employers will ever say "you're too old" as a reason for not hiring someone, but there are lots of ways to say it in an acceptable way ("overqualified" comes to mind, though maybe not in this case), which makes getting to "yes" harder for older candidates.

As you might have guessed, I'm "asking for a friend." Any and all input is welcome.

[Aschenbach]

I've seen many people make the jump in their forties and have relatively good career prospects, but sixties is on another level. I would assume it would depend on the type of law he is looking to pursue. If he plans to open up his own practice right after articles, it's doable, but a lot of law firms would be hesitant in hiring someone with such a limited working time left. Even after getting called, it takes years to refine skills and be a competent lawyer, and I'm not sure if many firms would want to invest in someone for them to retire in 5-7 years.

[GreyDude]

7 minutes ago, Aschenbach said:

Even after getting called, it takes years to refine skills and be a competent lawyer, and I'm not sure if many firms would want to invest in someone for them to retire in 5-7 years.

Yes, good point. His assumption is that barring health issues, he won't retire "on schedule". He's looking at 15-20 years, which he considers reasonable given family background and his current health. That said, it is reasonable for a firm to make a different assumption (such as the one you mention).

Edited January 17 by GreyDude

[omigone]

I'm sorry I can't be very helpful on all points, but I will add that many of the firms on Bay Street (to my knowledge) either have or are adopting mandatory retirement policies at 65. 

I can't comment on this policy at every firm (and would love for others to chime in) but because it's an internal process, your friend will likely not be able to inquire about this during the interview stage (or know if this is the reason an interview offer may not have been extended). I'll also add that there are some exceptions to this policy, where members of the judiciary or professors can take on counsel or scholar in residence positions, which are not generally available to someone who would not have made partner by age 65.

With that being said, I think it's worth considering crossing off Bay Street firms from the list (or at least understanding that there is a lower shot with the firms due to this policy). 

I'm sure that there are many medium to small sized firms that aren't bound by such internal policies. I hope this is helpful in some way and wish your friend the best of luck in the job search.

[Diplock]

Anyone with that profile I'd be steering towards areas of law where you can establish a practice on your own fairly easily - criminal, family, immigration, maybe real estate. Presumably someone with that background would have transferable skills that would help them with the entrepreneurship required. And the great advantage of age at that point is that your "employer" is actually your client base as a whole. Unlike an employer who would want to know your background and would be wondering what to do with someone at that age who was just starting, it would never occur to most clients to even ask and they'd simply see a senior lawyer. Of course the lawyer in question would still have to figure out how to do the damn job, but they'd already have a natural advantage of assumed competence. After that, their only remaining challenge is to live up to it.

[Aschenbach]

14 minutes ago, GreyDude said:

Yes, good point. His assumption is that barring health issues, he won't retire "on schedule". He's looking at 15-20 years, which he considers reasonable given family background and his current health. That said, it is reasonable for a firm to make a different assumption (such as the one you mention).

Also in most large and some boutique firms the first few years after being called are grueling where you're putting in 50+ hour work weeks and, depending on the partners you work with, you may have little control over your time off. Your friend should really think about why he wants to go into law and if he is willing to make these sacrifices at a late stage in his life. Is he looking for job satisfaction? A higher income? Prestige? 

[Psychometronic]

I graduated with someone who had a prior (and I think ongoing part-time) career as a medical doctor. He was probably younger than 60 but older than 35. He was hired by a plaintiff-side medical negligence firm in his 1L summer and continued to work there through his articles. In that case, I'd say his prior experience outweighed his age. 

[CleanHands]

34 minutes ago, Psychometronic said:

I graduated with someone who had a prior (and I think ongoing part-time) career as a medical doctor.

It was ongoing part-time during law school. And he somehow also worked as a bartender on top of that as well. lol

[SNAILS]

Picking my two favorite points out of what was said above:

I echo @Diplock's point that being older makes clients think you have more experience and seniority than you do. This makes it easier to build a relationship of trust with them, but never be deceitful about your actual experience and never let them believe you are a lawyer before you are called.

Further to @Psychometronic's point, I agree that building off your prior career helps. For example, if the 60 year old law student was an accountant, it could open a lot of doors in tax or some forms of administrative law. (Owed construction company = drafting contracts in the building trade and "speaking the same language" as your clients) 

 

@GreyDude, in response to your question "How do potential employers see him, and how should he approach them?" I would say that the older law student needs to non-verbally communicate respect and deference to younger mentors. A mentor who is a 5 years call at the age of 31 will naturally gravitate to teaching a law student aged 25-30. If you are older than that mentor and unintentionally communicate that you already know everything, then they'll become distant and unhelpful. This can be perpetuated by gender, ethnicity and even being physically bigger than them.  You'll later be seen as someone who does not know very much because oversold yourself on your apparent experience and did not take the time to be taught. I hope what I'm writing in this paragraph makes sense. An older person should be asking questions all the time and making it clear to your co-workers that you are not a 10+ year call and that you do need help, you do want to shadow them, and that you do need some leniency when you inevitably make mistakes.

[GreyDude]

Sorry to take a few days to respond to all this, and thank you to those who gave feedback. Others are also welcome to join in, of course!  And I’m going to drop the pretence that this is not me. It’s definitely me. I meant to hint at that with the scare-quotes around ‘asking for a friend’, but what the heck. I don’t need deniability, plausible or not. Figleaf off.  I will be in my 60s when I pass the bar. 

On 1/17/2024 at 4:00 PM, Aschenbach said:

Also in most large and some boutique firms the first few years after being called are grueling where you're putting in 50+ hour work weeks and, depending on the partners you work with, you may have little control over your time off. Your friend should really think about why he wants to go into law and if he is willing to make these sacrifices at a late stage in his life. Is he looking for job satisfaction? A higher income? Prestige? 

Fair enough, and job satisfaction… sure. But that’s a general desideratum for anyone, so I’m not sure it counts. Any prestige worth having comes from performance, not titles. As for income: the opportunity cost and expense of three years of law school would make this a really stupid way to get rich at this point. That was one of the considerations, actually, and it almost stopped me from applying. I’m sure you’ll agree that anyone choosing to make such a big life change at any point must consider it very carefully, and the older you are the more carefully you have to consider it. I have relatively clear goals, though actually attending law school has fuzzed them up a bit and opened me up to other options.

On 1/17/2024 at 3:49 PM, Diplock said:

Unlike an employer who would want to know your background and would be wondering what to do with someone at that age who was just starting, it would never occur to most clients to even ask and they'd simply see a senior lawyer. Of course the lawyer in question would still have to figure out how to do the damn job, but they'd already have a natural advantage of assumed competence. After that, their only remaining challenge is to live up to it.

This is excellent advice.  I am already experiencing some pros and cons of assumed competence. People look at my grey hair and hear about my background and just assume that I’m at the top of my class — or conversely, they assume I’m at the bottom because I obviously don’t have the energy to handle law school, being old. 🙂  As you say, there’s a responsibility here to live up to the (positive) expectations, but yes, they might be able to be carefully leveraged, especially if I am able to move into a field of law that constitutes a continuation of certain aspects of my previous work, as @SNAILS suggested. That is certainly something I would like to do, though I’m keeping an open mind .

This is a puzzle to me, though. Not being a particularly entrepreneurial guy (pace @Diplock), I still can see that the most effective way to expand upon my existing experience might be to hang a shingle. But I still will need some sort of training in law, it seems to me (so I need to find an employer at lest for a while?), and , well, lacking the particular gifts that tend to make one a good entrepreneur, I doubt that I could do so alone, though I do find the idea very appealing. 

On 1/20/2024 at 8:08 AM, SNAILS said:

in response to your question "How do potential employers see him, and how should he approach them?" I would say that the older law student needs to non-verbally communicate respect and deference to younger mentors. A mentor who is a 5 years call at the age of 31 will naturally gravitate to teaching a law student aged 25-30. If you are older than that mentor and unintentionally communicate that you already know everything, then they'll become distant and unhelpful. This can be perpetuated by gender, ethnicity and even being physically bigger than them.  You'll later be seen as someone who does not know very much because oversold yourself on your apparent experience and did not take the time to be taught. I hope what I'm writing in this paragraph makes sense. An older person should be asking questions all the time and making it clear to your co-workers that you are not a 10+ year call and that you do need help, you do want to shadow them, and that you do need some leniency when you inevitably make mistakes

I’m mostly quoting this so that I can say « yes ». It’s already something I am experiencing with my LS class colleagues. And it goes both ways, unfortunately. The older colleague needs to have humility to learn from those much younger; but the younger colleague might also need to unlearn deference. I’m being serious. It is surprising, sometimes, how difficult it can be to encourage a younger person to teach an older person, at least in certain contexts. I also worry that the ‘overselling’ might also come from others’ assumptions — it’s important to fight the above-mentioned illusion of competence right away (though of course, without then creating a contrary illusion of incompetence). I don’t know if that was clear. 

[Jaggers]

Given your experience, working for a union or educational institution might be a possibility. That said, both are generally big on mandatory retirement. I think the bigger and more bureaucratic/structured an employer is, the harder it will be for them to go "outside the box" and hire someone significantly older than they're accustomed to. You probably need to find somewhere you bring something unique to the table, either through your career experience, personal network or interests/passions.

[GreyDude]

21 hours ago, Jaggers said:

Given your experience, working for a union or educational institution might be a possibility. That said, both are generally big on mandatory retirement.

On 1/17/2024 at 3:42 PM, omigone said:

but I will add that many of the firms on Bay Street (to my knowledge) either have or are adopting mandatory retirement policies at 65. 

 

Happily, Bay Street could not interest me less. 

I’m in Quebec, where the provincial Charter of rights is quite strong. I don’t know all the ins and outs of this, but I do know (in part because I handled some related dossiers for my union some time ago) that the mandatory retirement age was abolished here in the 1980s at least in the public sector. I believe this applies to  private companies as well, since unlike the federal Charter, the provincial one applies in the private sector, but I have been doubting that lately and need to check. 
 

https://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/en/your-obligations/prohibited-grounds/age

Edited January 26 by GreyDude

[JurisPrudent]

Just to clarify on Bay St. mandatory retirement policies - These are generally requirements that lawyers step down from the partnership at age 65, not that they leave the firm entirely. Lots of firms have “senior counsel” type positions that are available to senior lawyers who are past the age limit for being partners. 

[Jaggers]

People aren't going to stop making you leave at 65 just because they don't have a legal requirement that you do so. Unions still push people out to make room for the next generation. I think it would be hard to find a union or public sector unionized position where people are friendly to someone who's reached retirement age and is not leaving to make room for others.

[GreyDude]

On 1/26/2024 at 9:15 AM, Jaggers said:

People aren't going to stop making you leave at 65 just because they don't have a legal requirement that you do so. Unions still push people out to make room for the next generation. I think it would be hard to find a union or public sector unionized position where people are friendly to someone who's reached retirement age and is not leaving to make room for others.

Hm.

Well, perhaps in Ontario, but this was absolutely not the case  — or at least not something I observed — in the public sector union where I held various leadership positions until recently. There, we actively fought for the rights of older members including against employers who wanted them to retire, and was reflected in our internal practices. I knew two syndical advisors in their 70s and several executive members in their 60s. I am unaware of any older union officials (including myself), at least in my labour federation, who have stepped down under pressure due to their age, even when (as was my case) it was to  are room for the next generation, or of election campaigns where age was an issue. Maybe my federation was unusual. Still, I think we’re  dealing with the difference between someone believing they ought to leave space for the next generation and someone giving in to pressure. I, at least,  never saw evidence of the latter. 
 

That said, I won’t make a similar prediction regarding the reaction of a hiring committee to an older candidate. I suspect the reaction might be as it would be anywhere else.

On 1/26/2024 at 8:03 AM, JurisPrudent said:

Just to clarify on Bay St. mandatory retirement policies - These are generally requirements that lawyers step down from the partnership at age 65, not that they leave the firm entirely. Lots of firms have “senior counsel” type positions that are available to senior lawyers who are past the age limit for being partners. 

I dunno, but this still feels like a discriminatory practice, and I wonder if it would stand if challenged. 

Edited January 27 by GreyDude

[Psmith]

3 hours ago, GreyDude said:

I dunno, but this still feels like a discriminatory practice, and I wonder if it would stand if challenged. 

It was challenged, and went to the Supreme Court: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13663/index.do

Short answer: equity partners are business owners, not employees, so Mr. McCormick wasn't protected by the BC Human Rights Code.

 

[Jaggers]

Yeah, though Ontario has a provision in its Code that BC doesn't have an equivalent of:

 

Contracts

3 Every person having legal capacity has a right to contract on equal terms without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.

[GreyDude]

Here is the relevant article of Québec's Act Respecting Labour Standards.

https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/version/cs/N-1.1?code=se:84_1&history=20240124#20240124

"84.1. An employee is entitled to continue to work notwithstanding the fact that the employee has reached or passed the age or number of years of service at which the employee should retire pursuant to a general law or special Act applicable to the employee, pursuant to the retirement plan to which the employee contributes, pursuant to the collective agreement, the arbitration award in lieu thereof or the decree governing the employee, or pursuant to the common practice of the employer.

However, and subject to section 122.1, such right does not prevent an employer or his agent from dismissing, suspending or transferring such an employee for good and sufficient cause."

@Jaggers@Psmith

Edited January 28 by GreyDude
punctuation

[Lizagator]

What’s the rationale for forcing partners out at 65 aside from making room for younger people ? I really hope that’s not actually the reason. That really doesn’t sit well with me.

[LMP]

Just now, Lizagator said:

What’s the rationale for forcing partners out at 65 aside from making room for younger people ? I really hope that’s not actually the reason. That really doesn’t sit well with me.

It is just the nature of those firms. Those partners got their roles because other people withdrew from the partnership at 65. It doesn't mean you have to stop practicing or even leave the firm. It just means you can't be part of the partnership. 

[Lizagator]

1 minute ago, LMP said:

It is just the nature of those firms. Those partners got their roles because other people withdrew from the partnership at 65. It doesn't mean you have to stop practicing or even leave the firm. It just means you can't be part of the partnership. 

Would that not be akin to a forced, massive pay cut?

[LMP]

11 minutes ago, Lizagator said:

Would that not be akin to a forced, massive pay cut?

Almost certainly.

[GreyDude]

Even in this more limited context I still suspect that l, at least here in QC, that would be found to be a prohibited form of discrimination, unless there’s a reason based on public interest that could justify it , which is possible, I suppose. 

[Dinsdale]

15 hours ago, Lizagator said:

What’s the rationale for forcing partners out at 65 aside from making room for younger people ? I really hope that’s not actually the reason. That really doesn’t sit well with me.

As stated, it is quite common in BigLaw.  Almost universal.  And yes, the main reason is to make room for younger people; in particular to pass primary responsibility for the firm's important clients to the next generation where they will best be nurtured and grown, and not turned into fossils by 80 year old equity partners.  The typical 64 year old equity partner is also usually at the top of the heap compensation-wise, so it is a way to spread that money around to the up and coming partners, too, in order to keep them happy and prevent them from jumping ship in the prime of their careers.  Conversely, how much new business is the typical 67 year old going to generate for us?

To use a sports metaphor, if I'm Jimmy Garoppolo and I'm "blocked" at my position by Tom Brady, what else can I do but demand a trade?  But if you're the Packers you jettison Aaron Rodgers even though he's the league MVP and go with the younger guy, who turns out to be great.

Ever notice how many 65-ish year old lawyers leave large firms to practice from home or form small boutiques, transition to become arbitrators, etc.?

Edited February 6 by Dinsdale

[GreyDude]

On 2/6/2024 at 2:19 PM, Dinsdale said:

Ever notice how many 65-ish year old lawyers leave large firms to practice from home or form small boutiques, transition to become arbitrators, etc.?

From what you're saying, they do this involuntarily? Or have I misunderstood?