I feel like being the youngest one in the room for most of my career. But the hands of time have caught up to me. And now I’m frequently the oldest.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to listen to other attorneys tell me about their years of experience and use it as a way to validate their arguments.

It started with “I’ve been practicing 10 years and….” Then it was “After two decades of representing defendants….” And finally I heard this in court a couple of years ago: “In my entire 30 year career I’ve never….”

I’m about to turn 59. (Sometimes I like to round up to 60 for effect.) And I’ve been practicing almost 35 years.

Writing that feels like more of an admission than something to brag about. But not everyone sees it the same way.

The other day an attorney (I think he receives our newsletter but I’m not sure if he reads it) sent me an email explaining that he was preparing to use everything he had learned in 44 years of practice in defending a case.

I thought that was a bold stroke. Kind of like Joe Biden campaigning on the basis that he’d been in politics over 50 years.

But more broadly, it really made me think about the tipping point where age is no longer a synonym for experience but seen as something that’s detrimental.

So I’m curious:

When do you think that age becomes an impediment rather than an attribute for trial attorneys?

It’s going to vary from person to person. But I want to get a sense of when people would start to get skittish about hiring over X years old.