Full article

The global paradox: Eastern law firms sideline senior lawyers, while Western firms go further and push them out entirely

Age discrimination within law firms has become one of the most concealed but pressing issues in the global legal profession. Although the case of Stewart B. Herman against the U.S. firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP has reignited the debate in the West, this phenomenon is not limited to the United States or Europe: it exists across the world, but it manifests very differently depending on the region. The paradox is striking. While in Western countries senior lawyers are frequently pushed out with no alternative, in Asia and other emerging regions although they may also be marginalized, they are kept integrated in more moderate, meaningful roles. This creates two completely different professional models.

In the United States and Europe, particularly in major legal markets like New York and London, age discrimination is more aggressive, explicit, and professionally devastating. The case of Stewart B. Herman illustrates this reality. Herman, a former partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP headquartered in Chicago with a major presence in New York filed a lawsuit in 2025 seeking 67 million dollars, alleging that the firm sidelined him, dismantled his aviation finance practice, stripped him of clients, isolated him internally, and ultimately forced him out at age 62 for being “too old.” Although Katten denied the allegations, the reputational damage was done age is treated as a cost, not an asset. And this is far from an isolated case. In the West, the model is blunt: perform or leave. Firms rely on unforgiving financial metrics billable hours, profit per partner, yearly productivity ratios that leave no space for professionals whose pace or availability naturally evolves with age. Traditional intermediate roles such as Senior Counsel, Partner Emeritus or Of Counsel have been diluted or eliminated entirely. In practice, a senior lawyer in the West moves from prestige and influence… to no career at all.

In contrast, in countries such as China, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, India, Brazil, Russia or the United Arab Emirates, although productivity pressures are also intense, the treatment of senior lawyers follows a very different cultural and organizational logic. Age discrimination exists, yes but it does not destroy careers. It reshapes them. In much of Asia, age carries an intangible cultural value: experience, authority, wisdom, professional honour, and the ability to mediate complex situations. Even if firms prefer younger lawyers for pure productivity reasons, abruptly expelling a senior professional would not be socially acceptable.

As a result, firms offer alternative roles in which senior lawyers can continue contributing in a meaningful way. In China and Japan, it is common for senior lawyers to transition into positions such as specialized consultants, internal mentors, technical advisors for complex transactions, arbitrators or external experts. In Singapore—one of the most competitive legal markets in the world—the transition is smoother, and senior professionals remain active in key strategic matters. In Russia and Brazil, the model is hybrid: the meritocracy is tough, but firms still rely on senior profiles for arbitration, consultancy or high-level networking. In short, Eastern firms also sideline senior lawyers, but they keep them integrated; Western firms sideline them only to expel them completely.

The paradox can be summarized clearly. In Asia and emerging markets, senior lawyers may lose power, visibility or leadership positions, but they keep their professional identity and role. They remain part of the structure. In the West, however, the combination of financial metrics and a corporate culture obsessed with youth leads to an extreme outcome: senior lawyers lose functions, then status, then their place in the firm altogether. The senior Western lawyer goes from the partnership… to nothing. Why does this difference occur? The reasons are cultural, economic, structural and sociological. In Asia, age is associated with wisdom; in the West it is associated with cost. U.S. and European firms operate under aggressive financial logic, Asian firms under a mixed logic of prestige, continuity and long-term stability. Western firms have dismantled intermediate roles; Eastern firms preserve them. And, above all, in many Asian societies it would be socially unacceptable to expel an older professional without a transition, whereas in the West it has become standard practice.

Age discrimination is now one of the most unrecognized but significant challenges facing the legal profession worldwide. But the way each region manages it defines the profession’s future. In the West, it destroys careers. In the East, it transforms them. The Katten case demonstrates that this debate can no longer be ignored. Law firms must decide whether they want a model that treats senior talent as strategic capital or one that eliminates it to maximize short-term financial metrics. What is at stake is not only fairness inside firms, but the long-term sustainability and credibility of the legal profession itself.