Tech Capital Markets in 2026: A Flat Sector Beside a Rising Practice

A finance chief or general counsel at a software company who is choosing capital markets lawyers for tech companies ahead of a listing or a bond deal should first check which way demand is moving. Sartori & Partners data show that technology and software deal flow held flat (+4.6%) between the settled 12-month windows ending September 2025 and September 2026, from 3,136 to 3,279 deals. Over the same windows the capital markets practice's deal count rose 10.0%, from 11,838 to 13,024. The bench you will hire is busier than a year ago, and it got busier while technology demand as a whole stood still. Capital markets lawyers also appear on a smaller part of technology work than of pharma work: 24.0% of the sector's deals against 53.1%.

Put the technology line next to the others. In the Sartori & Partners deal record, the whole market's deal count rose 10.6%, from 43,590 to 48,216, and pharma and biotech deal flow rose 14.5%, from 2,880 to 3,298. Technology is the outlier of the group: its deal flow held flat (+4.6%). The capital markets practice, at 13,024 deals against 11,838 a year earlier, moved with the market and with pharma, not with technology.

Neither line isolates technology offerings. The sector count covers every technology matter, from acquisitions to disputes, and the practice count covers capital markets work for every client sector; no year-on-year figure is published for the pair. What the two lines do show is load on the same people: capital markets partners carried more work across sectors in a year when technology demand overall did not move. For an issuer, that means the team pitching for your listing will be running other sectors' offerings in parallel. Ask how many live deals the proposed lead partner is carrying in your target window, and engage counsel before the underwriters are mandated.

The two sectors are almost the same size by count: 3,279 technology and software deals in the 12 months to October 2026, and 3,276 pharma and biotech deals. Capital markets lawyers worked on 786 of the technology deals and 1,740 of the pharma ones, so the pharma share of 53.1% is 2.2 times the technology share of 24.0%. Across all dated deals, capital markets lawyers appear on 26.4%, which leaves technology 2.4 points under the market-wide figure.

The same list shows where technology work goes instead. Corporate and M&A lawyers were on 47.8% of technology deals against 23.4% of pharma deals. By deal type, venture and growth financings were 15.3% of technology deals against 3.8% of all dated deals: more of the sector's fundraising is private rounds, which corporate and venture teams handle. Practice shares inside one sector overlap, since a single deal can draw lawyers from several practices, so they are compared and never added. The consequence for a technology issuer is plain. The firm that ran your venture rounds and acquisitions may not have a capital markets team that prices offerings every month, so test that depth before you assume it.

Turn the view round and read the bench's own book. Of the capital markets practice's 12,684 deals in 12 months, technology and software companies were the client sector on 786, or 6.2%. Banks and financial institutions were the sector on 13.8% and pharma and biotech companies on 13.7%. Technology companies were the client sector on 6.8% of all dated deals, so their place on the capital markets bench sits close to their place in the market. Pharma's practice share is 2.0 times its share of all deals, and the banks' is 1.9 times.

Electronics and semiconductor companies are counted as a separate sector, on 3.3% of capital markets deals, so a hardware issuer should read that row as well. Deal size adds a second gap: where a value was published, the median technology deal was $250 million against $563.2 million for capital markets deals across sectors, although the technology median covers every kind of deal, not only offerings. A capital markets team's record is built mostly on issuers from other sectors. Ask every firm on your list for the technology offerings it ran in the past 12 months, kept apart from its overall capital markets record.

The office that runs your offering matters as much as the firm. 38.7% of the sector's deals were handled with lawyers in New York, 19.6% with lawyers in Washington, DC and 18.1% with lawyers in San Francisco. Palo Alto, at 10.5%, and Silicon Valley, at 9.7%, are listed on their own; one deal can involve offices in all three, so the Bay Area rows overlap and are never added together. For pharma and biotech, New York's figure is 45.9% and Boston's 25.5%, against 10.1% for Boston on technology deals.

Each share counts the sector's deals, among those with a known lawyer location, that had lawyers working on them from the city: it shows where the work is done, not how many lawyers sit there. The list covers all technology deals, acquisitions and disputes included, and the overall deal record carries no city list, so there is no market-wide figure to set beside it. Against pharma, technology work leans less on New York, Boston and Washington and more on each Bay Area row, with Silicon Valley at 9.7% of technology deals against 5.8% of pharma deals. For a listing, the partner who runs the filing and the team that knows your company may sit in different offices: ask each firm which office leads and who speaks to the underwriters' counsel.

The first list below ranks firms on all technology and software deals, not only capital markets work; there is no firm list for technology offerings alone. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati heads it, with Latham & Watkins and Davis Polk & Wardwell in the same 151-250 band of deals advised over 12 months, according to Sartori & Partners figures. The second list ranks firms on capital markets deals for every client sector, headed by Davis Polk & Wardwell and Latham & Watkins.

Checked name by name, three firms sit in both lists. Latham & Watkins ranks 2nd on technology deals and 2nd on capital markets deals; Davis Polk & Wardwell ranks 3rd and 1st; Cooley ranks 6th and 9th. The other seven technology firms, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati among them, are not in the capital markets top 10, which says nothing about whether they run offerings: a firm just under the cut is not shown. The technology ranking also counts matters of every kind, including intellectual property disputes taken from court and trademark records, which tell you nothing about an underwriting. Start a shortlist from the three firms with volume on both lists, and if you add a firm your company already uses, ask it for the offerings its own capital markets partners led in the past 12 months.

Book the bench early. Capital markets deals across sectors rose 10.0% year on year while technology demand held steady, so the partners you want are busier because of other sectors' issuers, not yours; fix your counsel before the underwriters, not after. Check capital markets depth apart from sector depth. Capital markets lawyers were on 24.0% of technology deals, and your regular counsel may be a corporate and venture shop rather than a capital markets one. Read the bench's book: technology was the client sector on 6.2% of capital markets deals, so ask for technology offerings by name and by date. Pick the office as well as the firm, with 38.7% of technology deals handled with lawyers in New York and the Bay Area spread over three rows. Start from the three firms that appear on both lists, and test every other name on offerings it has actually led.