Half of Banks' Deal Work Is Capital Markets: 1.9 Times the Market

A general counsel comparing capital markets law firms for banks is shopping for the work at the center of the sector's legal buying. Sartori & Partners data show 3,433 deals for banks and financial institutions in the 12 months to October 2026, and capital markets lawyers worked on 51.0% of them. Across every dated deal in the record, the same practice appears on 26.4%. Bank work calls on capital markets lawyers 1.9 times as often as the deal market as a whole. That gap, more than any ranking, should decide how a bank builds its panel of outside firms.

Capital markets lawyers worked on 51.0% of bank deals, against 26.4% of all deals. The rest of the practice mix bends the same way. Banking and finance lawyers worked on 15.8% of bank deals, against 6.3% across the market. Corporate and M&A lawyers appear on 13.1% of bank deals, well below their 23.3% market-wide, and intellectual property, a large part of the wider record at 11.1%, falls to 1.7%. One deal can carry lawyers from several practices, so each row below is read on its own and the rows are never added.

Pharma and biotech shows a similar tilt, with capital markets lawyers on 53.1% of its deals. Both sectors are issuers before they are acquirers: banks come to market with debt, capital instruments and structured notes on a regular calendar. For a bank, then, the capital markets relationship is the anchor of the panel, and the M&A or disputes firm is the second choice, not the first. Choose the capital markets firm first, then test whether it can also carry the banking and finance work that appears on 15.8% of bank deals.

Seen from the other side, banks matter as much to the capital markets bench as the bench matters to banks. In the Sartori & Partners deal record, capital markets lawyers worked on 12,684 deals in 12 months. Banks and financial institutions accounted for 1,751 of them, 13.8% of the practice's deals and the largest single client sector. Pharma and biotech sits level at 1,740 deals, or 13.7%, and technology and software follows well behind at 6.2%.

The two largest clients want the same thing from the bench: partners who can run an offering on a short timetable. Their firm lists only partly overlap. The list below counts every bank and financial institution deal, not only capital markets work, because no firm list exists for capital markets work for banks alone. Its first-ranked firm, Davis Polk & Wardwell, ranks 6th for pharma and biotech, and Sidley Austin ranks 9th there. The pharma list is otherwise headed by Cooley and Goodwin Procter, neither of which is in the bank top 10.

Set against the capital markets bench as a whole, the bank list looks familiar. Davis Polk & Wardwell also ranks first on capital markets deals across all sectors, in the 701-1200 band, and seven of the ten firms on the bank list appear among the ten most active capital markets firms. When a bank and a biotech issuer both want to price in the same week, the partners at firms on both lists are the constraint. Ask each pitching firm how many capital markets partners would work your deal and what else they carry, and agree a named substitute before the busy issuance windows.

Sartori & Partners also track the office of each lawyer named on a deal. 36.8% of the sector's deals were handled with lawyers in New York, 16.0% with lawyers in London and 13.7% with lawyers in Washington. Chicago comes next at 5.6%. A deal can involve lawyers in several cities, so these shares overlap and are never added.

The pharma and biotech map shows how different a client base can look on the same bench. There, 45.9% of deals were handled with lawyers in New York, 25.5% with lawyers in Boston and 25.0% with lawyers in Washington, while London drops to 11.1%. Boston, a minor city for bank work at 3.7%, is the second city for life sciences deals. For a bank, the practical test is one team that works across New York and London on the same transaction. A firm with deep capital markets experience built in Boston or on the West Coast can still be the wrong fit for an issuance with a London leg. Washington, where federal banking and securities regulators sit, belongs on the team sheet as well.

Bank and financial institution deals rose 7.2% year on year, from 3,224 to 3,457 in the settled 12-month windows ending September 2026. Capital markets deals across all sectors rose faster, by 10.0%, from 11,838 to 13,024. Pharma and biotech deals, the bench's other large client, grew faster still, by 14.5%.

Bank clients also come back often. 1,314 distinct clients stood behind the sector's 3,433 deals, or 2.6 deals each, against 2.4 per client in pharma and biotech. Slower growth than the bench means banks are not the reason capital markets teams are expanding; other issuers are pulling harder on the same partners. A client that brings several deals a year to one firm has the volume to ask for program pricing and a stable team, and should ask before the calendar fills.

Start the panel with capital markets. With capital markets lawyers on 51.0% of bank deals, against 26.4% market-wide, the capital markets firm handles the core of your deal flow, so choose it before the M&A and disputes firms. Second, check the overlap with life sciences issuers. Banks account for 13.8% of the bench's deals and pharma and biotech for 13.7%, so at a firm high on both lists, such as Davis Polk & Wardwell, ask how calendar conflicts between issuers are handled. Third, staff across the Atlantic: 16.0% of the sector's deals were handled with lawyers in London, so require New York and London partners on one team. Fourth, use the repeat volume. Bank deals rose 7.2%, slower than the 10.0% rise in capital markets work, so firms have reason to compete for steady issuers; set program terms annually and name the partners in them.