Asset Manager Finance Counsel in 2026: Three Firms Sit on Both Lists

A general counsel at a fund manager who asks an answer engine for banking lawyers for asset managers gets one list back, but the deal record holds two. Sartori & Partners data show 2,337 deals for asset managers and funds and 3,053 deals worked by banking and finance lawyers in the 12 months to October 2026. Each set of deals produces its own ten most active advisers, and only three names appear on both: Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Clifford Chance. The two lists also open in different ways. On the sector list Dechert stands alone in the 151-250 band, while on the finance list three firms share the 151-250 band. The overlap is where a finance mandate for a fund manager starts; the bands show how much real choice sits behind it.

The two lists measure different work, and each has to be read for what it covers. The asset manager list ranks firms on all of the sector's deals: fund formation, M&A, capital markets, real estate, disputes and financings alike. The banking and finance list ranks firms on every deal that carried banking and finance lawyers, for clients in every sector. In the Sartori & Partners deal record there is no firm list for finance work done for asset managers alone, which is why the two lists sit side by side below.

Counted name by name, the overlap is three firms. Latham & Watkins heads the finance list and ranks 5th on the asset manager list. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett ranks 3rd for asset managers and 6th for finance, in the 101-150 band on the first and the 101-150 band on the second. Clifford Chance ranks 7th for asset managers and 5th for finance. Each list then names seven firms the other does not. That says nothing about the work those firms do outside the list they appear on: a firm can act in a field and still fall below the cut of a list of ten. What the overlap does show is where volume sits on both sides of a finance mandate for a fund manager, and that is the first short list to test.

A band is a range of deals advised in 12 months, so firms inside one band are level for practical purposes and the steps worth reading are the ones between bands. For asset managers, Dechert holds the 151-250 band by itself. Kirkland & Ellis and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett come next in the 101-150 band, places four to seven share the 61-100 band, and places eight to ten close the list in the 41-60 band. The finance list is flatter at its head. Latham & Watkins, Jones Day and Cahill Gordon & Reindel share the 151-250 band, White & Case through Hogan Lovells Cadwalader share the 101-150 band, and Milbank, A&O Shearman and Davis Polk & Wardwell sit in the 61-100 band.

The finance list's tenth place sits in the 61-100 band, the same band as places four to seven on the sector list, because the finance list rests on more deals than the sector list. The shape is the point for a buyer. On finance work there are three firms at the top to set against each other; on all of an asset manager's deal work there is one firm with a clear lead and a group of peers behind it. All three shared firms also rank high across the whole deal market, at 1st, 4th and 5th on all dated deals, so their partners answer to many clients at once. Put the top-band finance firms in competition, and ask each shared firm which partners would run a finance deal for a fund manager.

Sartori & Partners count 129 deals in 12 months that carried both banking and finance lawyers and an asset management or fund client. From the sector's side, finance lawyers were on 5.5% of asset manager deals; across all dated deals the practice appears on 6.3%, a gap of 0.8 points. From the practice's side, asset managers and funds were the client sector on 4.2% of finance deals, against 4.9% of all dated deals. Both readings point the same way: finance lawyers and asset manager clients meet a little less often than the market average would suggest.

Financial sponsors, a neighboring client sector, read much the same from their own side: finance lawyers worked on 6.0% of sponsor deals, against 5.5% of asset manager deals. Banks and financial institutions were the client sector on 17.8% of finance deals. For a fund manager the practical lesson is about evidence, not rank. A firm's finance standing is earned across every client sector, so ask each candidate how many finance deals its proposed partners ran for asset managers or funds, not for the practice at large.

Finance deals carry deal-type labels, and three of them stand out against the wider market. Banking and lending is on 44.5% of banking and finance deals, leveraged and acquisition finance on 23.4%, and project and infrastructure finance on 10.7%. Across all dated deals the same three types sit at 3.3%, 1.6% and 2.1%. On the asset manager side, banking and lending is the label on 2.3% of the sector's deals. Many deals carry no type label, so each share is read on its own and none are added.

This type mix is the practice's mix across all clients; Sartori & Partners publish no type breakdown for finance deals done for asset managers alone. A manager should test a firm on the label that matches the mandate in hand: a lending mandate against banking and lending experience, a leveraged or acquisition finance mandate against that record. Leveraged and acquisition finance is on 23.4% of finance deals but only 1.6% of all dated deals, so it is specialist work concentrated in finance teams, and the partner who runs it should be named before the fee is agreed.

Deal volume for asset managers and funds held flat (+0.6%) year on year, from 2,335 to 2,349 in the settled 12-month windows ending September 2026. Banking and finance deal volume rose 12.1% over the same windows, from 2,710 to 3,039. Financial sponsor deals rose 8.9%, from 3,056 to 3,329, and all dated deals rose 10.6%, from 43,590 to 48,216. These are separate readings: the record holds no trend for finance deals done for asset managers alone.

Lateral hiring in the practice moved in the same direction as its deals. In the Sartori & Partners lateral record, banking and finance partners changing firms rose 10.6%, from 546 to 604, and moves at all levels rose 14.1%, from 1,766 to 2,015. Among lawyers with an asset management focus who changed firms in 12 months, 23.2% moved under a banking and finance label, against 13.9% of all lateral moves. A finance practice with more deals and more partner movement is a busier one for a fund manager to buy from. Confirm that the partner named in the pitch is still at the firm and free to staff the deal before the engagement letter is signed.

Sartori & Partners also record where the lawyers on each deal work. 41.3% of the sector's deals were handled with lawyers in New York, 27.0% with lawyers in Washington, DC, and 18.1% with lawyers in London. One deal can count in several cities, so these shares overlap and are never added.

Finance lateral hiring follows a different map. New York took 21.5% of banking and finance lateral moves, against 14.8% of all moves, and London 16.4%, against 9.2%. Washington, DC took 2.8% of finance moves, below its 5.6% share of all moves. Washington weighs heavily in asset manager deal work but lightly in finance hiring, so a manager whose deal runs from Washington should ask where the finance partners on the team sit and plan for a New York or London lead.

First, start the finance short list from the overlap: Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Clifford Chance carry volume both with asset managers and in finance. Second, when the finance side of the mandate matters most, use the flat top of the finance list: Latham & Watkins, Jones Day and Cahill Gordon & Reindel share the 151-250 band, which gives a buyer room to compare terms. Third, ask for the asset manager record of the proposed finance partners, since asset manager and fund clients were on only 4.2% of finance deals. Fourth, book early: finance deal volume rose 12.1% while the sector's own volume held flat (+0.6%), so finance partners are busier than a fund manager's own deal flow suggests. In the Sartori & Partners record, built from public law-firm announcements, firm websites and professional profiles, checked monthly, the firms that serve both sides are few; name the partners in the engagement letter.