Bank Project Finance Counsel in 2026: Projects Outpaced Bank Work

A bank treasurer or general counsel shortlisting project finance law firms for banks is buying time from a practice whose workload is climbing faster than the bank's own. Sartori & Partners data show projects and infrastructure deals rose 26.2% on settled 12-month windows, from 903 to 1,140. Deals involving banks and financial institutions rose 7.2% over the same months, from 3,224 to 3,457. Banks matter to that practice: they were on 10.2% of its deals in the 12 months to October 2026. This report sets the two readings side by side and turns them into questions for the next mandate.

The two trends are separate counts, each read on its own. Projects and infrastructure deals rose 26.2%, 1,140 in the settled 12 months against 903 a year earlier. Bank and financial institution deals rose 7.2%, 3,457 against 3,224. All dated deals rose 10.6%, 48,216 against 43,590, so the projects practice ran ahead of the whole record and bank work ran behind it. On these windows the practice's growth rate was 3.6 times the sector's.

No trend exists for projects work done for banks alone, so neither figure describes that slice. What the pair does show is pressure on the same teams from other clients. Power and renewables deals, the practice's main source of work, rose 27.6% over the same windows, from 1,575 to 2,009. A bank that asks a projects partner for capacity this year is competing for hours with a busier client base than it had a year ago. Book the team early and fix staffing in writing.

Sartori & Partners counted 1,147 projects and infrastructure deals in the 12 months to October 2026. Banks and financial institutions were on 117 of them, 10.2%, second only to power and renewables at 57.1%. Infrastructure clients were on 7.7% and oil and gas on 5.3%. A deal can carry more than one sector and many carry none, so these shares are read one at a time and never added.

Across all dated deals, banks appear on 7.1%. In the projects practice the figure is 3.1 points higher, so banks are a regular account for these teams, not an occasional one. Power is the real outlier: 57.1% of the practice against 4.1% of the record. Expect the partners you interview to know energy assets well, and ask how much of their recent work sat on the lender's side.

Turn the same deals around and the weight shifts. Banks and financial institutions had 3,433 deals on record in 12 months, and projects and infrastructure lawyers worked on 117 of them, 3.4%. Project and infrastructure finance was the deal type on 3.8% of bank deals, while capital markets deals were 48.8%. Power and renewables tells the opposite story: projects lawyers were on 32.9% of that sector's deals.

So projects counsel is a small, specialist line in a bank's legal spend, but a bank is a meaningful client for the projects team. Practice shares inside the sector overlap, so the figure is not a split of bank work. For a general counsel, that gap is leverage. Your bank weighs more with the projects partners than in your own panel's volume figures, which are driven by capital markets and finance teams. Run project finance appointments as a separate selection, not as an add-on to the main panel.

The practice's own mix is narrow. Project and infrastructure finance was the type on 807 of its deals, 70.4%, with M&A at 10.3% and banking and lending at 6.8%. Across all dated deals, project and infrastructure finance is 2.1%. Bank deals show nearly the reverse balance, which the table sets out.

Hiring followed the work at the top: in the Sartori & Partners lateral database, partner moves into projects practice held flat (+16.5%), 212 against 182, while moves at all levels held flat (+1.3%). For a bank, the mix means one test above all: the team should have closed project and infrastructure financings recently, not only general lending or M&A. Ask for the last few closings and the role the firm played on each.

Values are disclosed on 24.1% of bank and financial institution deals, with a median of US$660 million. That median covers every kind of bank deal, capital markets included, and is not a price for projects work. The projects practice discloses a value on 27.6% of its deals, at a median of US$498.4 million across all its client sectors. Power and renewables deals carry a median of US$500 million on 27.7% disclosure.

Most deals in each group carry no published value, so these medians describe only the disclosed part. Use them as a rough sense of scale when you scope fees and staffing, and ask each firm for the size range of the financings its proposed partner closed in the past year.

Two different lists answer two different questions. The projects list ranks firms by projects and infrastructure deals for all client sectors, power and banks alike; Clifford Chance heads it, in the 61-100 band of deals advised. The bank list ranks firms on every kind of bank and financial institution deal; Davis Polk & Wardwell heads it, in the 151-250 band. There is no list for projects work done for banks alone.

Clifford Chance and White & Case appear on both lists, counted name by name. The bands set the scale: the tenth projects firm sits in the 21-40 band, the tenth bank firm in the 61-100 band. Volume is not capability, so treat the projects list as a starting set and ask each firm which partners acted for lenders in the past year.

Plan for busier teams. Projects deals rose 26.2% while bank deals rose 7.2%, so the partner you want is carrying more work than a year ago. Agree the core team, the associate cover and the response times in the engagement letter, before the term sheet is signed.

Select projects counsel on its own terms. Banks are on 10.2% of the practice's deals but projects lawyers are on only 3.4% of bank deals, so your general panel's deal volume says little about this bench. Start from the projects firm list, check recent project and infrastructure financings, and use the overlap with the bank list only as a first filter.