Medical Device Deals in 2026: Capital Markets Ahead of M&A

A general counsel at a device maker who asks which medical device M&A lawyers to hire is asking for a bench that, in this sector, comes second. Sartori & Partners data show that capital markets lawyers worked on 44.4% of medical device deals in the 12 months to October 2026, 347 deals, while corporate and M&A lawyers worked on 28.8%, 225 deals. That is a gap of 15.6 points. Across all 48,131 dated deals on record the two practices sit much closer, at 26.4% and 23.3%, a gap of 3.1 points. Device companies list, raise and refinance more often than they buy, and the firms that know the sector well often met it through offerings.

The ranking of practices inside the sector is the first thing a buyer of legal services should read. Capital markets lawyers appeared on 1.5 times as many device deals as corporate and M&A lawyers did. Intellectual property lawyers followed at 11.4% and banking and finance lawyers at 4.4%. A single deal can carry lawyers from several practices, so these shares overlap; they measure how often each bench was in the room, not a split of the work.

Read side by side, the device sector over-weights capital markets work by 18.0 points against the deal record as a whole. For a device company planning an acquisition, this means a firm's sector record will lean on listings and follow-on offerings. When a firm presents its medical device credentials, ask it to separate the acquisitions and disposals from the offerings, and to name which of its partners led each kind.

Second bench does not mean small bench. Against its nearest life sciences neighbor, the device sector gives corporate lawyers a larger role: they worked on 28.8% of device deals but on 23.4% of pharma and biotech deals. The capital markets lead is also narrower here. In pharma and biotech, capital markets lawyers sat on 53.1% of deals, a gap of 29.7 points over corporate lawyers, against 15.6 points in devices. Deal types point the same way. M&A transactions made up 21.4% of device deals, against 17.5% in pharma and biotech and 19.3% across all dated deals.

Disputes also weigh more in this sector: disputes and investigations were 16.4% of device deals, against 9.6% in pharma and biotech. A device acquisition carries patent and product questions that a pure corporate team will hand to colleagues. The useful test at a pitch is whether the M&A partner has worked alongside the firm's intellectual property and product lawyers on device matters before, not only whether the firm has device clients.

Demand from the sector is steady, not climbing. In the Sartori & Partners deal record, medical device deals held flat (+6.9%) year on year, from 758 in the 12 months to September 2025 to 810 in the 12 months to September 2026. Corporate and M&A deals across every sector rose 9.5% over the same windows, from 10,198 to 11,170, and the whole deal record rose 10.6%. Pharma and biotech deals rose 14.5%. The device figure counts every device matter, offerings and disputes included, so it is not a trend for device M&A alone; none is published for that pair.

The corporate bench itself is moving. Lateral moves of corporate and M&A lawyers between firms rose 15.8%, from 2,532 to 2,933, which counts lawyers changing firms, not deals. Among lawyers with a medical device focus who changed firms in the past 12 months, corporate and M&A was the practice on 15.0% of moves, an index of 73 against the market's share. Corporate lawyers are a thinner slice of the device specialists who move than of the lateral market as a whole, so a device-savvy M&A partner rarely comes up for hire: build the relationship with the firm, and confirm that partner has room before the process starts.

The device sector's legal work is spread across more cities than pharma's. Lawyers in New York worked on 37.3% of device deals with a known lawyer location, and lawyers in Washington, DC on 18.0%. Boston came third at 13.2%, 80 deals, against 25.5% of pharma and biotech deals, about half, a ratio of 0.5. Chicago runs the other way, at 9.1% of device deals against 6.8% of pharma deals, and Los Angeles at 7.5% against 5.6%. A deal counts in every city whose lawyers worked on it, so the shares never add up to a total.

For a device company, a Boston office is useful but not the default it is for a drug developer. The work sits in New York and Washington first, with Chicago, the West Coast and London each carrying a share. Pick the firm for the partner who will run the deal, then check that the patent and regulatory lawyers can join from the cities where the sector's work is actually done.

There is no adviser list for device M&A on its own. The first list ranks firms on all medical device deals, offerings and disputes included; the second ranks firms on all corporate and M&A deals, in every sector. On the device list, Latham & Watkins, Sullivan & Worcester and Goodwin Procter open a group that shares the 21-40 band of deals, and Cooley opens the 11-20 band.

Matched name by name, five firms sit on both lists: Latham & Watkins (ranked 1st for corporate work), Goodwin Procter (4th), Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (3rd), DLA Piper (5th) and Cooley (7th). The device list also carries Sullivan & Worcester, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Jones Day, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo; their rank rests on all their device work. Those five overlap firms combine sector volume with corporate volume, which makes them a natural first round for a sizable acquisition. For the others, ask how many of their device matters in the past 12 months were acquisitions.

Treat M&A counsel as a separate hire from offering counsel. Sartori & Partners figures put capital markets lawyers on 44.4% of the sector's deals and corporate lawyers on 28.8%, so the firm that took you public may not field the partner who should run your acquisition. Expect a larger corporate bench than a pharma company finds, since corporate lawyers appear on 23.4% of pharma deals. Sector demand held flat at +6.9% while corporate work rose 9.5%, so device buyers compete with busier sectors for the same partners: brief counsel when the target list forms. Start with the five firms on both lists, and staff by city: with New York and Washington, DC ahead of Boston at 13.2%, a Boston-only team is a choice that needs a reason.