Medical Device Capital Markets Counsel: Two Different Benches

A general counsel or finance chief at a device company who is choosing medtech capital markets lawyers buys from one bench, while the device lawyers who change firms come from another. Sartori & Partners data show that capital markets lawyers worked on 44.4% of the 781 medical device deals dated in the 12 months to October 2026. In the same 12 months, 180 lawyers whose focus is medical devices joined a new firm. Their moves were recorded under litigation (49.4%), intellectual property (47.8%) and health care (25.0%), and 63.3% of them were partners. Among capital markets laterals in every sector, the partner share was 31.5%. The gap bears on two decisions a device company makes: whom to mandate for an offering, and where to look when it hires a lawyer with device experience.

Device deal work runs through the capital markets bench more heavily than the deal record as a whole. Capital markets lawyers worked on 44.4% of medical device deals, against 26.4% of all dated deals in every sector. Corporate and M&A lawyers worked on 28.8% of device deals, intellectual property lawyers on 11.4% and banking and finance lawyers on 4.4%. One deal can involve several practices and many deals carry no practice label, so these shares overlap and are never added together. The deal types tell the same story: 43.9% of the sector's deals were capital markets transactions and 21.4% were M&A.

Seen from the practice's side, device companies are a small client group. They were the client sector on 347 capital markets deals, 2.7% of the practice's 12,684, while pharma and biotech companies were the client sector on 13.7%. A capital markets team's record therefore rests largely on other sectors. When you interview firms for an offering, ask for the device deals their partners closed in the past 12 months, not the size of their capital markets book.

The movable bench has a different shape. In the Sartori & Partners lateral database, 49.4% of the moves by device-focused lawyers were recorded under litigation and disputes, 47.8% under intellectual property, 25.0% under health care, 17.8% under product liability and torts and 15.0% under corporate and M&A. A move can carry more than one practice, so these shares also overlap.

The index sets each share against the same practice's share of all lateral moves, so a reading above the market level means the practice is over-represented. Health care reads 841 and intellectual property 645: these are the practices where a device focus concentrates among lawyers who move. Product liability and torts reads 261 and litigation 124. Corporate and M&A reads 73, below the market, although corporate lawyers worked on 28.8% of device deals; the two shares count different things, deals on one side and moves on the other. For pharma and biotech, the nearest sector, health care reads 659 among movers. The practical reading for a company: the device lawyers who changed firms this year include many advisers on patents, product claims, regulation and disputes. If one of them carries your matters, agree now how the file would follow a partner who moves.

Level mix separates the two benches further. Of the device-focused lawyers who changed firms, 63.3% were partners, 15.0% counsel and 21.1% associates. Among capital markets laterals in all sectors, partners were 31.5%, counsel 11.5% and associates 56.5%. Lawyers focused on pharma and biotech sit between the two: partners were 49.1% of their moves.

The partner weight is not a one-year quirk: over three years, partners were 60.6% of device-focused movers. Capital markets laterals are associate-heavy, and the practice's partner moves held flat (+1.1%) year on year, 185 in the settled window against 183 before. For a device company hiring in-house, the market of lawyers with device experience who are open to a change is a senior one: associates were only 21.1% of device-focused moves. Budget the role for a partner-level candidate, or plan to train a mid-level lawyer into the sector.

Year on year, medical device deals held flat (+6.9%), with 810 in the settled 12 months to September 2026 against 758 in the 12 months before. Capital markets deals across all client sectors rose 10.0% over the same windows, from 11,838 to 13,024, and the whole deal record rose 10.6%. The two readings measure different things: the sector count covers every device matter, M&A and disputes included, while the practice count covers capital markets work for every client sector. Neither isolates device offerings, and no trend is published for that pair. Disclosed device deals had a median value of $358.1 million, against $563.2 million for capital markets deals, though the sector median covers all device deals and not only offerings.

On the people side, Sartori & Partners figures show that the count of device-focused lawyers who changed firms held flat (+13.9%), 180 against 158, and capital markets laterals as a whole held flat (+6.7%). A steady sector inside a practice whose workload is growing means a device issuer shares its capital markets partners with a busier client list. Fix the deal team and its partner hours in the engagement letter, before the issuance window opens.

Washington, DC was the city joined in 15.6% of moves by device-focused lawyers, an index of 278 against the market. New York, at 13.9%, reads 94, close to the market level. The deal work spreads wider: 37.3% of the sector's deals were handled with lawyers in New York, 18.0% with lawyers in Washington, 13.2% with lawyers in Boston and 5.3% with lawyers in San Diego. One deal can count in several cities, so those shares are not added.

The firm list below covers all medical device work, every practice included; no list exists for the sector's capital markets deals alone. Latham & Watkins, Sullivan & Worcester and four other firms share its top band of 21-40 deals advised. Checked name by name against the capital markets practice's own top 10, which spans every client sector, four firms appear on both: Latham & Watkins (ranked 2nd for the practice), Davis Polk & Wardwell (1st), Cooley (9th) and Ellenoff Grossman & Schole (8th).

For an offering, the four firms on both lists combine sector volume with capital markets volume, and the others on the device list are worth testing on the capital markets side. Ask which office would staff the deal: a search confined to New York leaves out the Boston and San Diego lawyers who worked on 13.2% and 5.3% of device deals.

Run two searches, not one. For an offering, hire from the deal bench: capital markets lawyers sat on 44.4% of device deals, yet device companies were only 2.7% of the practice's deals, so test each firm on device offerings rather than total volume. For a lateral or in-house hire with device experience, the lawyers who changed firms came through litigation, intellectual property and health care, at 49.4%, 47.8% and 25.0% of moves, and 63.3% were partners. Budget for seniority, and start in Washington, where device moves index at 278. Protect continuity on patent, product and regulatory files, since the device moves on record ran through those practices. Book capital markets counsel early: the practice's deal count rose 10.0% while device deals held flat (+6.9%).