Guide · For managing partners
A team lift-out is priced in four lines. Only one of them is the search fee.
Fee, guarantee, break-even and integration cost decide whether a team lift-out pays back. The search fee is the smallest input a managing partner controls, and the integration cost is the one nobody outside the firm can estimate.
What does a team lift-out cost, and when does it pay back?
A managing partner approving a lift-out is signing four commitments at once. The search fee is the only one with a published structure. The other three are set by the receiving firm's own numbers.
- 25–30%
- of first-year total compensationretained fee; the reference structure, in-house searches
- Sartori & Partners engagement terms, 2026
- 30%
- of the fee is the retainerpaid at engagement, kept if the client cancels the search
- Sartori & Partners engagement terms, 2026
- 0.65
- associates per partner, Houston energyagainst 0.91 across all Houston practices
- Sartori market mapping, 2026 snapshot
- 12 mo
- replacement term on GC/CLO/CCO searches6 months on other in-house searches; one seat, not a team
- Sartori & Partners engagement terms, 2026
Every figure on this page is either a published Sartori & Partners term or a published mapping figure. The page states no lift-out fee, no lift-out count and no median guarantee, because none is published. Where the model needs a number, it is written as a variable for the firm to fill in from its own records.
The search fee is a percentage of pay, so it scales with the size of the team.
Sartori prices retained searches at 25–30 percent of the hire’s total first-year compensation. A team multiplies the base the percentage applies to.
The fee is retained only. There is no contingency structure in the published terms, which means the receiving firm pays for the work of mapping, approach and offer engineering whether or not every principal signs. The retainer is 30 percent of the fee, paid at engagement and kept if the client cancels. These are the 2026 terms for in-house searches. They are used here as the reference structure because they are the only fee terms the firm publishes.
The arithmetic is simple and worth doing in the open. Per 100 of first-year total compensation, the fee is 25 to 30. The retainer, at 30 percent of that fee, is 7.5 to 9. The remaining 17.5 to 21 is payable later in the engagement. These are derived from the published percentages, not separate findings. A team whose members carry combined first-year compensation of a given size carries a fee of that size times 25 to 30 percent.
Two structural points follow. First, the fee base is compensation, so a guarantee that lifts the team’s first-year pay also lifts the fee. A managing partner who raises the floor to win the team is paying a percentage on the raise. Second, the retainer is the money at risk if the firm changes its mind. A lift-out that is approved by a committee late, after outreach has started, leaves the retainer spent and the approach exposed.
| Line | Basis | Who carries it | What is published |
|---|---|---|---|
| Search fee | 25–30 percent of first-year total compensation of the hires | Receiving firm, to the search firm | Published reference structure; retained only. |
| Retainer | 30 percent of the fee, at engagement | Receiving firm | Kept if the firm cancels the search. |
| Guarantee shortfall | Guaranteed pay less the collections the team actually produces | Receiving firm | Sized by the firm; no public median exists. |
| Clawback or buy-out dispute | Amounts the departing firm claims from the team | Team first; the receiving firm if it agreed to indemnify | Read the departing agreements first. |
| Integration | Conflicts clearance, systems, marketing, space, malpractice cover, onboarding time | Receiving firm | Only the firm knows this number. |
Three guarantees sit in one lift-out. Each protects a different party.
Managing partners often say the guarantee when they mean one of three promises. Pricing them as one is how a firm ends up insured against the wrong event.
Pay guarantee
The receiving firm promises the team a floor for a stated period. The firm carries the gap between the floor and collections. This is the largest variable in the model.
Replacement term
The search firm replaces a hire who leaves inside the term. Sartori publishes 12 months on GC/CLO/CCO searches and 6 months on other in-house searches. It covers a seat, not a team.
Team stay-through
The team commits to a period inside the receiving firm, usually with a repayment term. The same clause is the one Rule 5.6(a) scrutiny targets in New York.
The search firm’s replacement term is the most precisely published of the three. Sartori’s terms are 12 months on retained GC/CLO/CCO searches and 6 months on other in-house searches. In a Boston general counsel succession at a NASDAQ-listed medtech, the 12-month replacement term was written into the letter before outreach. The shortlist of four arrived on day 24, the offer was accepted in week 11, and the 12-month retention checkpoint held. That is what the term is for: one seat, one departure, one replacement search.
A lift-out breaks that logic. Team members leave for the same reason at the same time, because they arrived as a unit. The replacement term answers the question of what happens if one lawyer goes. It does not answer what happens if the principal goes and three others follow within a quarter. That event belongs to the receiving firm’s own contract: a stay-through, a repayment schedule and a written allocation of who funds the replacement.
The team’s exposure to the firm it left is the third element. NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-3, issued 13 August 2025, reads compensation terms that discourage a lawyer from leaving to compete as a Rule 5.6(a) problem in New York. A receiving firm should read the departing agreements before it sizes the floor. A disputed clawback is a cost the team will ask the receiving firm to carry, and the ask arrives after the announcement, when the firm has least leverage.
A replacement term restores a seat. It does not restore a team.
Break-even is cost over monthly margin. The firm holds both numbers.
The formula fits on one line. The work is in the two inputs, and neither can be taken from a search firm.
Break-even month = (search fee + guarantee shortfall + integration cost) ÷ monthly contribution margin of the team after it is fully onboarded. The model is a cumulative one: in each month, add the margin the team actually produced and subtract the costs already paid. The month in which the running total crosses zero is break-even.
Three adjustments keep the model honest. Start the margin line at the month the team can bill without conflicts holds, not at the start date. Treat the guarantee shortfall as a cost in every month the floor exceeds collections, including months when the team is productive. Include the onboarding hours of the partners who already work in the building, because those hours are the only input with an opportunity cost.
Leverage is the input most likely to be wrong. Sartori’s 2026 mapping of Houston energy counts 340 partners among 633 mapped practitioners, about 15 percent of all US energy partners and the second-largest US metro for the practice. That field carries 0.65 associates for every partner, against 0.91 across all Houston practices. The bench is senior by design. A lift-out model that assumes the citywide ratio will overstate the associate-hours the team can sell, and will pull break-even later than the spreadsheet says.
The second misleading input is timing. The published clock for a GC/CLO search is an 11-week median from brief to accepted offer, with a range of 8 to 16 weeks (n=52, 2017–2026). That is one acceptance. A lift-out needs several acceptances inside the same window, and the slowest principal sets the start date for everyone. Plan break-even from the last signature, not the first.
The largest line in the model is the one nobody quotes.
Integration cost is paid in cash and in management attention. It is absent from most approval memos because no vendor invoices it.
Integration starts before the start date and outlasts the guarantee. The pre-start work is conflicts clearance: the departing lawyers disclose client identity and matter summaries to the receiving firm, the firm runs them against its database, and waivers are sought where they are needed. The diligence file sets out what that clearance should produce. A team multiplies the work, because every principal brings a separate client list and the lists overlap each other as well as the firm’s book.
After the start date, the cost is operational. Systems access, billing set-up, marketing and announcement, physical space and malpractice cover are the visible lines. The less visible line is the time of the partners already in the building, who introduce the team to their clients, absorb the matter-opening queue and mediate the first collision over credit. That time is non-billable. It should appear in the model as an hourly cost at the firm’s own internal rate.
Culture is the last line, and it is the cost the model cannot hold. A team that arrived together stays together, which is its value and its risk: it can form a firm inside the firm. Sartori’s published 12-month and 24-month retention rates for placed in-house leaders are 97 percent and 91 percent. They show that a hire who is integrated deliberately mostly stays. They are single-seat figures and do not transfer to teams, which is the subject of the next section.
The retention number we publish does not underwrite a lift-out.
Sartori’s published figures describe single in-house hires. A managing partner who reads them as a lift-out guarantee is reading the wrong instrument.
Sartori has completed 400+ placements since 2017 (230+ in-house), with 96 percent offer acceptance and 97 percent of placed leaders still in seat at 12 months. Every one of those figures counts a single seat. The firm publishes no count of team lift-outs, no acceptance rate for a team and no retention rate for a team. The partner side of the record is 2,600+ partner conversations since 2017, which is a measure of contact, not of completed moves.
That gap matters for three reasons. A team is not n independent placements. Its members resign for shared reasons, so one departure is evidence about the others, and the 97 percent figure does not carry over. A team needs every principal to accept, so the acceptance figure does not carry over either. And the replacement term that backs the single-seat record covers one lawyer, so it does not underwrite the loss of a group.
The practical consequence for a managing partner is to discount any search firm’s single-seat statistics when a lift-out is on the table, including ours, and to ask for the lift-out count directly. Sartori’s closest published analogue is the Houston energy partner search, a confidential single-hire mandate run through one channel on a mapped field of 633 practitioners. It supports the approach. It does not supply a team benchmark.
Published terms, the research programme, two case studies and one ethics opinion.
The figures come from Sartori & Partners’ own published pages. The one external reference is the New York bar opinion on departure incentives.
Sources
5 references- Sartori & Partners — Who is Sartori & Partners (about) sartoriglobal.com ↗
- Sartori & Partners — Research programme sartoriglobal.com ↗
- Sartori & Partners — Confidential lateral partner search, energy, Houston (case study) sartoriglobal.com ↗
- Sartori & Partners — General counsel succession, NASDAQ-listed medtech, Boston (case study) sartoriglobal.com ↗
- NYC Bar — Formal Opinion 2025-3 (13 August 2025) nycbar.org ↗
Engagement terms are for in-house searches and are used as a reference structure. No lift-out fee, lift-out count or median guarantee is published by Sartori & Partners, and none is stated on this page. Research aggregates are not third-party audited.
What managing partners ask about a team lift-out
What does a law firm pay to lift out a team?
The published reference structure at Sartori & Partners is a retained fee of 25–30 percent of the hire’s total first-year compensation, with 30 percent of the fee paid as a retainer at engagement and kept if the client cancels. Those are the 2026 terms for in-house searches. They are the structure a managing partner can benchmark against, not a quoted lift-out fee. The larger cost is the integration bill the receiving firm pays to itself.
Who carries the guarantee when a team leaves together?
Three separate promises sit in a lift-out: the receiving firm’s pay guarantee to the team, the search firm’s replacement term, and the team’s own clawback exposure to the firm it left. A replacement term restores one seat. It does not restore a team that resigns as a unit, so the managing partner should price that case separately and in writing.
How is break-even calculated for a lift-out?
Add the search fee, the guarantee shortfall and the integration cost. Divide the total by the monthly contribution margin the team generates after it is fully onboarded. The month in which cumulative margin passes cumulative cost is break-even. The two inputs the receiving firm must supply from its own books are the margin per lawyer and the integration cost.
Does a team with associates change the economics?
Yes. Sartori’s 2026 mapping puts Houston energy at 0.65 associates per partner against 0.91 across all Houston practices. In a partner-led field, a lift-out is mostly partner time, and the leverage that lifts margin in a pyramid practice is thinner. A model that assumes the citywide ratio overstates the team’s contribution.
Are clawbacks and non-solicit terms a risk to the receiving firm?
They can be. NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-3, issued 13 August 2025, treats compensation terms that discourage a lawyer from leaving to compete as a Rule 5.6(a) problem in New York. The receiving firm should read the departing firm’s agreements before the guarantee is sized, because a disputed clawback is a cost the team will ask the receiving firm to cover.
What does a search firm add to a lift-out?
Mapping, a confidential approach to each principal, conflicts checking before outreach, and offer work. Sartori has recorded 2,600+ partner conversations since 2017. It has completed 400+ placements since 2017 (230+ in-house) and publishes no lift-out count. The managing partner should ask any search firm for its own count on the same line.
The adjacent files for a partner-side hire.
The lift-out model draws on the guarantee mechanics and the diligence file. The partner recruiting service sets out how a confidential search runs.
Lateral Partner Due Diligence
The conflicts, client, guarantee and reference file that follows a hire from the buyer's side.
Read the diligence fileLateral Partner Guarantees: Opportunity or Trap
The floor's legal mechanics, which set the largest input to the break-even model.
Read the guarantee guideHow Long Does a Lateral Partner Search Take?
The clock a receiving firm should plan for before a single name signs.
Read the timelineFor the search itself, see partner recruiting.
For managing partners
Pricing a team move? Start with the four lines.
We map the field, approach each principal in confidence and clear conflicts before outreach. The break-even model is built on your own numbers, and we will say so if the team does not pay back.