A partner forced to retire at the age of 63 from Leeds firm Walker Morris was discriminated against, an employment tribunal has ruled.
Martin Scott claimed to have been forced out of the firm in 2023 when his application to extend his stay for another two years was rejected.
Top-100 firm Walker Morris told the Leeds tribunal that its policy of making partners aged over 60 reapply to stay on was aimed at ‘intergenerational fairness’ and the need to free up equity to give progression opportunities to younger partners. It further submitted that the extension application being turned down was entirely unrelated to age but was because Scott could not show he would make an ‘exceptional contribution’ in a further two years.
The Leeds tribunal panel, chaired by Employment Judge Ayre, unanimously agreed that had he been aged under 60 he would not have been subjected to the same treatment. The refusal of both the Walker Morris board and the partners to grant Scott’s application amounted to less favourable treatment because of age.
The tribunal accepted that inter-generational fairness was a legitimate social policy aim. But there was no evidence of senior partners ‘hogging the equity’ or of the firm needing to free up equity to give progression opportunities to younger partners. Neither was there any evidence of tension between different generations of partners.
‘There was very little evidence before this tribunal to support a conclusion that forcing partners to retire age 63 was reasonably necessary for workforce and succession planning,’ said the tribunal.
Different standards were applied to different age groups, and the tribunal took account in particular of the evidence of former managing partner Malcolm Simpson, who said that partners begin to ‘slow down’ as they get older.
The tribunal added: ‘There was a lack of objective evidence of any deterioration in performance of partners in their 50s and 60s. Mr Simpson demonstrated discriminatory assumptions about and attitudes towards older partners, which were not supported by the evidence before us.
‘Mr Simpson’s comments about partners’ performance and energy levels tailing off in their 50s and beyond are the type of assumption that the age discrimination legislation is designed to counter.’
The tribunal heard that Scott, a solicitor for 40 years, had become a partner with Walker Morris in 1992 and an equity partner five years later. In 2018 the firm implemented a new retirement policy under which any member aged over 60 had to apply if they wanted to be kept on and would have to show their future contribution ‘in the broadest sense’ would be of an ‘exceptional nature’.
Scott was granted a three-year extension in 2020 and remained working as a partner in the construction team, with his equity reduced by 10% each year.
After the first year of his extended period, the firm reported to him that his strong financial performance was ‘significantly undermined’ by persistent poor conduct and behaviour. He was described in the feedback as ‘disruptive, uncollaborative and corrosive’ and failing to make a broader contribution. Scott was said to have responded ‘angrily and aggressively’ describing Simpson and other partners as ‘control freaks’ and threatening to sue for an alleged breach of his equity agreement.
Scott’s view was that performance should be assessed by reference to financial performance, and he described other factors as ‘guff’.
When Scott made his second extension application, the board refused on the basis that the handover of goodwill through a succession plan had been completed. Simpson had also reminded the board before making its decision about Scott’s behaviour, although this was not included in the final explanation.
The tribunal had ‘no hesitation’ in finding that the decision of the board was part of a continuing act of discrimination. A remedy hearing will follow.
Scott was represented by Leeds-based Milners Solicitors and counsel Darryl Hutcheon and Hugh Tomlinson KC of Matrix Chambers.
Giles Ward, a senior partner with Milners, said the ruling served as a ‘warning bell’ to others.
‘This far-reaching judgment will be of obvious interest to law firms and other professional service firms across the UK with mandatory retirement policies,' he said. It reflects the current position in age discrimination law and engages in detail with the Supreme Court’s benchmark decision in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes, handed down more than a decade ago.’
In a statement, a spokesperson for Walker Morris said the firm was 'disappointed' by the findings of the tribunal and will be considering itsresponse.
He added: 'In common with other professional services firms, our partnership has agreed rules covering the retirement of partners which we follow in a full and fair manner. These rules were intended to open-up partnership opportunities for future generations. Mr Scott voted in favour of changes to our retirement rules and indeed benefitted from them when his retirement date was extended in 2020.'
1 Reader's comment