The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Regarding the front page headline about judges being forced to retire at 70 (The Lawyer April 4). Nowadays a lawyer seeking alternative employment over 35 (if male) or 30 (if female) is considered too expensive and/or brain dead.
A friend told me of her interview experience with a large City solicitors firm. She carefully omitted to make any mention of age, only too well aware of age discrimination which is a bar to otherwise suitable candidates. When the conversation turned to her age, the interviewing partner’s expression changed from genuine interest to shocked horror and the interview came to an abrupt end. I am sure this is not unique.
US legislation protects a prospective employee from discrimination on grounds of age.
In the UK, the Institute of Personnel and Development has published a statement which urges employers to develop recruitment and career policies which do not discriminate on such grounds. It says: “Employment decisions based on age are never justifiable, are based on fallible suppositions and lead to the ineffective use of human resources.”
The Department of Employment has also issued advice to those seen as too old for the job.
My heart bleeds for the judges. It bleeds more for those who are denied the opportunity of putting their skills and experience to good use from the age of thirty-something.