What Big Law Firms Hire For in 2026: Three Practice Profiles

Ask what practice areas are big law firms hiring in, and the market-wide answer is litigation first. Sartori & Partners data show that litigation and disputes was involved in 39.9% of the 14,091 lateral moves recorded over 12 months, corporate and M&A in 20.7% and private equity in 8.8%. That average describes almost none of the firms doing the most hiring. Their practice mixes fall into three distinct profiles, and a firm that benchmarks its lateral program against the whole list, or against the market, is measuring itself against firms that recruit for different work.

The list below ranks the firms that hired the most lateral lawyers in the 12 months to October 2026. It counts individual hires: lawyers who joined as one team in the same quarter are in the market totals but not in a firm's rank. A firm's practice mix is rounded to the nearest five points, and one hire can sit in more than one practice, so the shares overlap and add to more than the whole. Read them as a profile, not a split.

Set against the market mix, the list separates cleanly. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Kirkland & Ellis hire for deal work: corporate and private equity run far above their market shares, and litigation far below its 39.9%. Dentons and Greenberg Traurig hire across practices in proportions close to the market's, with real estate heavier. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani hires almost entirely for litigation defense, with product liability, employment and insurance behind it. DLA Piper, third on the list, is a broad platform over three years, but its 12-month hiring has moved into the deal profile: its litigation share is now no higher than at Kirkland & Ellis, about 20%.

The practical point is that a place in the ranking says little about who competes with whom. A firm hiring corporate associates is up against the transactional engines and hardly at all against the defense model, even though all of them sit in the same top 10.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is the clearest case. Corporate and M&A was involved in about 65% of its 12-month lateral hires, against 20.7% across the market. Private equity was about 35%, roughly 4.0 times the market's 8.8%. Funds work was about 20% against 4.2%. Litigation, which touched 39.9% of all lateral moves, was about 5% of its hires.

Kirkland & Ellis, first on the list, runs the same model at larger scale and with more spread. Corporate and M&A was about 35% of its 12-month hires and private equity about 20%, against 8.8% for the market; banking and finance was about 20% and litigation about 20%. The three-year mix has the same shape, with corporate at about 30%, private equity at about 20% and litigation at about 20%. The gap between the two corporate figures is one rounding step, so the profile is steady, not a spike in a busy deal year.

For a firm building a corporate, finance or private equity bench, these two set the competition. Their volume in deal practices is the benchmark that matters, and a candidate in those practices from a large firm should be assumed to be in their process as well.

Dentons looks like the market in miniature on litigation: about 40% of its 12-month lateral hires, in line with 39.9% across all moves. Corporate and M&A was about 20%, close to the market's 20.7%. The departure is real estate, about 20% against 10.6%, with construction at about 10% against 6.0%.

Greenberg Traurig, fourth on the list, has a similar shape. In the Sartori & Partners lateral database its hires ran about 35% litigation, 25% corporate and 20% real estate, with employment at about 15% against 10.7% for the market and private equity at about 10%, near the market's 8.8%. DLA Piper is broad but leans to deal work: corporate about 40% and litigation about 20% of its 12-month hires. Over three years its mix was closer to even, with corporate at about 30% and litigation at about 25%.

A full-service firm benchmarking itself should compare with these platforms, not with the engines. Its rivals for a real estate, construction or employment partner are other broad firms, and its litigation hiring is judged against a market where litigation is already the largest practice.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, seventh on the list, is a different business. Litigation & Disputes was involved in about 80% of its 12-month lateral hires, against the market's 39.9%. Product liability and torts was about 30% against 6.8%, insurance and reinsurance about 15% against 4.8%, and employment about 25%. Its three-year litigation share, about 85%, shows the same model.

The level mix follows the model. Counsel were about 30% of its lateral hires, against 12.7% of all lateral moves, which fits a practice that staffs defense matters with experienced lawyers below partner.

For a litigation boutique or a regional defense firm, this is the large competitor that matters: it recruits the same insurance, product liability and employment lawyers, and it does so at volume. For a corporate firm it is hardly a competitor at all.

Pick the profile before the benchmark. A transactional firm should read its corporate share against Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Kirkland & Ellis, where corporate ran at about 65% and 35% of hires, not against the market's 20.7%. A full-service firm should read against Dentons and Greenberg Traurig, where litigation sits near the market's 39.9%. A defense firm has one large peer on the list, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, and should read against it alone.

Expect competition by practice, not by rank. A private equity search runs into the engines, whose private equity share is several times the market's 8.8%; a real estate or construction search runs into the platforms; an insurance or product liability search runs into the defense model. Sartori & Partners data also show that five of the six firms covered here kept their practice shape across three years, so a firm planning a build over the next few years can treat these profiles as settled competitors. The exception is DLA Piper, whose recent hiring moved toward corporate work.