The Case for Mandatory Partner Retirement

Mar 11th 2013
Share this content

By Gary Adamson, CPA 

Almost every firm that I work with has a succession issue in the near term. Baby boomers are retiring at an accelerating rate, and firms are coping (or not) with transition issues surrounding those exits. 

One of the topics of conversation, especially in this environment, is whether firms have a mandatory retirement age in their partner agreements. If they do, how does the process work, what is the definition of retirement, what is the right age, and what about employment after retirement, etc. 

It is almost counterintuitive firms would want mandatory retirement ages in their agreements when they are struggling with how to replace their partner ranks. But, the right answer is that you need to do both in a healthy firm – both control and manage retirements. At the same time, you must have horses in place to succeed those retiring partners. 

I will address in this article why it is critical that your firm have a stipulated, mandatory retirement age and how to make it work to the advantage of both the individual partners and the firm. 

Protect the firm. First and foremost, you must protect the firm, which is more important than the interests of any individual partner. I hope that premise does not need justification or debate. 

Set the date. The firm needs to control the retirement dates of the partners. In other words, there should be a required age in the partner agreements when the partner will retire. There is no mystery or uncertainty. Everyone knows the date. 

We know when we need to begin dealing with client transition and planning for the event. We can build in a process and a schedule to make sure we do it right! Contrast that with letting each partner tell us (when or if they feel like it) when he or she wants to go. 

At this point I need to define what I mean by "retirement." It is the date when a partner's ownership interest is redeemed and the partner has transitioned his or her partner responsibilities and no longer functions in the firm as a partner with partner responsibilities and relationships. 

What is the right age for a required retirement? The age itself is not as important as having the date. There are a lot of firms that use age sixty-five, but there has been quite a bit of movement in the profession in recent years to extend that. In the '80s and '90s, the required age was trending downward to, in some cases, the low sixties or even fifties. But what I see today is that firms are back to age sixty-five and beyond. I consulted with a firm recently that was using age sixty-eight. Remember it is the fact that you stipulate a date that is important, not the date itself. Also, remember that the firm can always extend the date for a high-energy, high-output partner, but it is very difficult to reduce it for a partner for whom it is time to go. 

Client transition. If you have the required date nailed down, how do you plan as the date approaches? Assuming that, as in most firms, you have an unfunded retirement benefit that the firm will be paying to the retired partner, the asset that you will use to pay that is the partner's client base. If you don't retain those clients, how will you pay that retirement benefit? You will not! The transition and retention of those clients must be part of the plan, and progressive firms are requiring that a transition plan be completed by the retiring partner to receive full retirement benefits. This transition process is a difficult thing for most partners to do as it means giving up relationships that are often quite personal. But, done well and timely, it is the best insurance retiring partners have that they will receive those unfunded retirement payments down the road. 

A two- to three-year client transition period is preferred, with two cycles (client year-ends) for business clients being the minimum. The point here is that there needs to be a written client transition plan with the retiring partner. If he or she completes that, then there should be no penalty or reduction of retirement benefits if a client subsequently leaves the firm. 

Post-retirement employment. As the retirement date approaches, the retiring partner should have less and less to do as other partners and staff in the firm assume the client responsibilities. When the retirement date arrives, the retiring partner should be able to truly retire from the firm and leave. But that rarely happens. Most firms and most retired partners will continue some form of employment after retirement. Here is the key: continued employment should be for specific, defined duties, such as review work, bringing in new clients, special projects, etc. Post-retirement work is generally on a part-time basis, and it is at the option of the firm. It is not continuing to do what the partner was doing – serving clients in a partner capacity! 

The retirement of partners in a fashion that protects the firm is a critical part of succession planning. If your partner agreements do not provide guidance and requirements surrounding the age of retirement, pull them out of the drawer, dust them off, and make the revisions to address this major issue. Again, protect the firm.

Read more articles by Gary.

About the author:

Gary Adamson is the President of Adamson Advisory, specializing in practice management consulting for CPA firms. He is an Indiana University graduate and has extensive hands-on experience as the recent managing partner of a top 200 CPA firm. He can be reached at (765) 488-0691 or [email protected]. For more about Adamson Advisory, visit or follow the company at and

Replies (2)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Phyllis Weiss Haserot
Jun 25th 2015 20:11 EDT

I agree with the need to plan client transitions. I think planning should be at least 5 years in advance of the relationship partner's retirement or change of partner status. Younger partners should see opportunities for taking on more responsibility or they will be frustrated and tempted to leave.
The transition process should be well structured and be a 3 legged stool with transition discussions including the incumbent, the successor and the client. Clients need to be comfortable with the transition plan and the succeeding team.

Many Boomer partners may be too valuable to push out at a predetermined age when they are still vigorous and eager to stay involved. They should be required to submit a business plan every year during the transition period and in subsequent years in which they would like to remain with the firm as an active professional. They can't be in charge forever, but there are alternative roles - or can be. A rigid age for sweeping out doesn't appear to be in the best interests of the firm, the individual or the client.

Thanks (0)
By Sophie
Jun 25th 2015 20:11 EDT

Could an outgoing partner, who falls victim to a mandatory retirement age, not bring proceedings against the partnership alleging prohibited age discrimination?

Thanks (0)