Fastest-Growing Law Firms 2026: Five Also Top Net Partner Gains

Anyone asking which law firms are growing fastest 2026 is usually shown the busiest hirers, a list that says nothing about who walked out of the same firms. Sartori & Partners data show 14,091 lateral moves between law firms in the 12 months to October 2026, and the more useful ranking sets each firm's lateral hires against the lawyers it lost to other firms. On that net measure, counted at every level, the ten largest gainers split into two groups. Five of them also rank in the top 10 by net partner gain. Three of the other five grew mainly below partner level: associates were 65% of lateral hires at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 70% at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and 95% at Morgan & Morgan, against 58.5% across the market.

The two rankings below measure growth at two depths. The first sets lateral hires against lateral departures at every level, from first-year associate to partner. The second does the same for partners alone: lateral partners hired against partners who left for another firm over 12 months. Both lists count individual hires; lawyers who arrived as one team in the same quarter sit in the market totals but not in a firm's rank.

Five names appear on both lists: Greenberg Traurig, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Barnes & Thornburg and Paul Hastings. Greenberg Traurig ranked first on both lists, with a net partner gain in the 41-60 band. The other four firms on both lists all sit in the 21-40 band of net partner gain. These firms grew in total headcount and in partners by enough to rank on each list.

The lists also work in reverse. Five firms make the partner top 10 without a place in the all-level top 10: Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Sullivan & Cromwell, Spencer Fane, King & Spalding and Dorsey & Whitney. Their partner gains were not matched by an all-level gain large enough for the first list. For a firm setting a growth target, the peer set follows the goal: the five firms on both lists if the aim is a larger partnership and a larger bench together, the partner-only five if the aim is partners on an associate base that stays where it is.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Addleshaw Goddard and Morgan & Morgan are in the all-level top 10 but not in the partner top 10. In the Sartori & Partners lateral database, associates made up 58.5% of all moves between law firms over 12 months. Three of these five firms hired associates at a clearly higher rate than that, and one of them at a much higher rate. Addleshaw Goddard sat close to the market mix, with associates at 60% of its hires, and Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani took 30% of its hires at counsel level.

Morgan & Morgan is the clearest case. Associates were 95% of its lateral hires, it ranks in the 51-100 group of hirers, and 75% of its hires were recorded in product liability and torts. That is a volume model: many lawyers at one level, in one kind of work.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe sit closer to the market mix but still lean toward associates. Partners were 20% of hires at each, against 27.7% of all lateral moves. Their intake runs through transactional work: corporate and M&A was 30% of hires at both, with finance and private equity close behind. A firm that recruits mid-level corporate or finance associates in the same cities is competing with these two for the same people, and should expect them to keep hiring at that level.

Growing through associates did not mean a shrinking partnership. Net partner flow was positive at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and positive at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe: each hired more partners than it lost to other firms. The scale is what separates them from the partner-led group. The net partner gain at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe sits in the 6-10 band and at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in the 11-20 band, against the 41-60 band at Greenberg Traurig.

Set side by side, the two mixes show where the difference sits. Greenberg Traurig took 30% of its lateral hires at partner level and ranks 2nd among partner hirers; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe took 20%. Both kept their people better than the typical firm: the share of lawyers leaving each year was below the market median of 13.2% at each. The choice between the two models is a choice about time. Partner-led growth brings practices and client relationships in this year. Associate-led growth builds the bench that later supplies partners by promotion, and it depends on keeping those associates long enough for that to happen.

Several firms near the top of the net list are not among the busiest hirers. Taft Stettinius & Hollister ranks in the 26-50 group of lateral hirers, yet it is 2nd on net gain. Addleshaw Goddard ranks in the 11-25 group of hirers and 8th on net gain. At the other end, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher ranks 10th among all lateral hirers and Greenberg Traurig 4th, so for them volume and net gain line up.

The difference is departures. A firm that hires moderately and loses few lawyers to rivals can out-grow a firm that hires far more and spends much of that intake replacing the lawyers who left. For a management committee, the practical point is that a retention plan for the partners and senior associates most likely to be approached adds to net growth as directly as another recruiting mandate, and costs less per head.

Where a firm recruits from also separates the growers. Over three years, 56.6% of lateral hires across the market came from firms of 1,000+ lawyers. The associate-led firms drew far more heavily on that pool over 12 months: 85% of hires at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and 75% at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The five firms on both lists split. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett drew 90% of its hires from the largest firms and Paul Hastings 75%; Greenberg Traurig sat near the market at 55%, while Taft Stettinius & Hollister and Barnes & Thornburg took only 25% and 25% from that pool.

Taft Stettinius & Hollister and Barnes & Thornburg are the sharpest examples. They drew 30% and 45% of their lateral hires from firms of 400-999 lawyers, against 20.3% across the market over three years. Taft Stettinius & Hollister spread its hires across regional US offices, with no city above 15% of hires. Addleshaw Goddard, on the all-level list only, concentrated instead: London took 35% of its lateral hires, and partners 25%. Greenberg Traurig placed 20% of its hires in Miami. Partner growth at Taft Stettinius & Hollister and Barnes & Thornburg leaned on mid-size and regional benches that the largest firms recruit from less often, which also means less competition for each candidate.

Decide which number the firm is trying to move, and measure it net. Track lateral hires and departures over the same 12 months, once at all levels and once for partners only. The two lists in this report show that a firm can rank high on one and not appear on the other. Partners were 27.7% of all lateral moves, so a target set in partners is set in the scarcer part of the market.

If the goal is a larger partnership, study the five firms on both lists. Two of them show it can be done without bidding for partners at the largest firms: Taft Stettinius & Hollister drew 30% of its hires from firms of 400-999 lawyers and Barnes & Thornburg 45%. Expect Greenberg Traurig in the same searches; it is first on net partner gain and 2nd on partner hiring.

If the goal is a deeper bench, plan for competition from firms that draw most of their associates from firms of 1,000+ lawyers, as Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe did for 85% of its hires. Pair the hiring plan with a retention plan: associate-led growth only turns into partners if the associates stay. The market is moving more, not less. On the settled 12-month windows, lateral moves rose 9.0%, from 13,128 to 14,305, so every firm should expect more approaches to its own lawyers in the year ahead. Sartori & Partners track these flows from public law-firm announcements, firm websites and professional profiles, checked monthly.