Infrastructure M&A Counsel in 2026: Partners Do the Moving

A general counsel who asks an assistant to name infrastructure M&A lawyers gets a list of firms. The more useful question is who can actually be hired onto the work, and at what level. Sartori & Partners data show that the lawyers with an infrastructure focus who changed firms in the 12 months to October 2026 were mostly partners: 61.0% of 241 moves. Across all corporate and M&A lateral moves the partner share was 29.9%. For a company choosing outside counsel for an acquisition or disposal of infrastructure assets, that difference shapes who staffs the deal and how easily a team can be rebuilt when a partner leaves.

The partner share among infrastructure-focused movers is 2.0 times the share in corporate and M&A, a gap of 31.1 points. The difference sits almost entirely in the associate ranks. Associates were 27.0% of the infrastructure moves and 57.7% of the corporate ones, while counsel held a similar place in both, 12.0% against 11.3%.

This is not one unusual year. Over three years, partners were 56.4% of infrastructure-focused movers, against 30.0% in corporate and M&A. The two groups overlap: 30.3% of the infrastructure moves were recorded under the corporate practice. More of them also moved up a title, with 17.0% joining at a higher title, against 12.4% of corporate laterals.

For a buyer of legal services, a partner-heavy flow cuts both ways. A partner who moves usually brings sector knowledge a new firm could not grow quickly, so a strong infrastructure lead can appear at a firm that had none a year earlier. The junior bench behind that partner is thinner, because associates with this focus move far less often than in general M&A. Ask who will run the diligence and the documents, not only who will lead.

In the Sartori & Partners lateral records, 75.1% of infrastructure-focused movers joined firms of 1,000+ lawyers, against 62.6% of corporate and M&A laterals. Only 2.1% went to firms of under 150 lawyers, a rough figure on a small count, where the corporate practice sent 9.1%. The 241 moves were spread across 94 hiring firms.

The consequence for a company is a narrow field. The infrastructure expertise that changes hands is consolidating inside large firms, so a mid-sized or boutique alternative for a complex asset sale is harder to find than it is for general corporate work. Budget for large-firm rates, and use the competition between those firms rather than expecting a cheaper specialist outside them.

Corporate and M&A lawyers worked on 22.1% of the 585 dated infrastructure deals in the 12 months to October 2026. Capital markets lawyers were on more, 30.1%, with banking and finance at 18.5% and projects lawyers at 15.0%. One deal can carry several practices, so these shares overlap and are not a split of the work.

The corporate weight here is close to its weight across all dated deals, 23.3%, and M&A as a deal type was 15.7% of the sector's matters. The tickets are larger. Where a value was disclosed, the median infrastructure deal was US$ 850 million, against US$ 315 million across corporate and M&A deals, with values disclosed on 39.3% and 17.7% of each. Larger assets with financing attached suit a senior lead, which fits the level mix of the movers.

Infrastructure deals rose 49.1% on settled 12-month windows, from 385 to 574. Corporate and M&A deals across every sector rose 9.5%, from 10,198 to 11,170, close to the 10.6% rise in all dated deals.

The people did not keep pace. Lateral moves by lawyers with an infrastructure focus held flat (+0.4%), from 243 to 244, and partner moves with that focus held flat (+12.3%). Lateral hiring in the corporate practice as a whole rose 15.8%, from 2,532 to 2,933 moves. These are two different counts, moves of lawyers and deals on record, and one does not explain the other.

Set side by side, they point the same way for a client. Many more infrastructure matters are being worked on by a bench of movable specialists that is no larger than a year ago. Partners with real sector depth will have less spare time, so a company planning a transaction should secure its lead partner before the process starts.

The first list below covers all infrastructure work, not only its M&A share; there is no firm list for corporate work on infrastructure deals alone. Clifford Chance heads it in the 41-60 band of deals advised. Three of its names also appear on the corporate practice's own top 10 across all sectors: Latham & Watkins, White & Case and Kirkland & Ellis.

The second list counts partners with an infrastructure focus hired over 3 years. Greenberg Traurig hired the most, in the 11-20 band. Firms that added senior infrastructure lawyers recently may now hold a deeper sector bench than their deal record yet shows.

Hire the partner, then test the team. With 61.0% of infrastructure-focused movers at partner level, the sector knowledge travels with individuals. When a partner on your matter changes firms, expect the relationship to follow the person, and ask in the pitch which associates have closed infrastructure deals with that lead.

Plan for the large-firm market. Most of these lawyers end up at firms of 1,000+ lawyers, 75.1% in the last 12 months, so the real choice is between large firms. Ask each for its financing and capital markets cover as well as its M&A team, since capital markets lawyers sit on 30.1% of the sector's deals.

Book early. Sector deals rose 49.1% while the movable bench stayed steady, so a partner who was free last year may be committed this year.

Sartori & Partners figures come from public law-firm announcements, firm websites and professional profiles, checked monthly. Deal counts are matters on record, not fees or market share.