Construction and Engineering Counsel: No Firm Holds the M&A Work

A general counsel building a shortlist of construction law firms usually starts from the wrong question. The question is not which firm owns the sector, because on the deal side none does. Sartori & Partners data show 558 construction and engineering deals in the 12 months to October 2026, and the adviser ranked first on them sits only in the 11-20 band of deals advised. The work those deals carry is also unusual. M&A appears on 39.2% of them, against 19.3% across all deals. A company in this sector therefore buys acquisition advice far more often than the average buyer, and buys it from an open field where no incumbent sets the price.

In the Sartori & Partners deal records, 219 construction and engineering deals were M&A, or 39.2% of the sector's deals. That is 2.0 times the M&A share of the whole market, or twice the market rate in round terms. Capital markets work moves the other way: it sits on 14.9% of sector deals, against 25.7% of all deals. Disputes and investigations are close to the market, at 27.8% against 25.0%. Each share counts deals of one type against every deal in the sector, typed or not, so they are read one by one and never added.

The tilt is shared with other industrial buyers. Industrial manufacturing carries M&A on 40.0% of its deals, close to the construction rate. Infrastructure, often bought from the same law firms, is a different mix: M&A sits on 15.7% of its deals and project and infrastructure finance on 19.8%. For a construction company the consequence is plain: the corporate team on the panel will be used far more than the financing team, and it should be chosen first.

The adviser list for the sector is flat. Latham & Watkins ranks first on construction and engineering deals over 12 months, in the 11-20 band of deals advised, with Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Knights in the same band. Seven of the ten firms in the list sit one band lower, at 6-10. Across all deals, the first-ranked adviser sits in the 1,200+ band.

Size does not explain the flatness. Infrastructure has a similar number of deals, 585 against 558, yet its first-ranked adviser sits in the 41-60 band. Industrial manufacturing puts its first-ranked adviser in the 21-40 band. Professional services, a sector of similar size, shows the same pattern as construction: its first adviser sits in the 11-20 band. Construction work is also spread across many buyers, with 292 distinct clients on the sector's deals. For a general counsel, a flat list means bargaining power. No firm can claim to have seen every deal in the sector, so a fee proposal can be tested against several firms with a comparable record, and a firm outside the list is not at a large disadvantage on sector knowledge.

The practice groups on these deals show who does the work. Corporate and M&A lawyers appear on 44.3% of construction and engineering deals, against 23.3% of all deals. Lawyers recorded under the Construction practice appear on 8.8% of the sector's deals. That share is small next to the corporate figure, but it runs far above the market: across all deals the Construction practice appears on 0.3%, so the sector uses it at many times the market rate. One deal can carry several practices, so these shares overlap and are compared one at a time.

The split matters for panel design. The firms that run a construction company's acquisitions are corporate teams first, and construction specialists join only a minority of those mandates. The lawyers who handle claims, project contracts and site disputes form a separate bench, covered in our companion report on construction litigation hiring. A company that expects its M&A adviser to also cover a delay claim on a major project is buying two different products from one invoice. Treat them as two purchases, with two sets of selection criteria.

Demand for this advice is growing. Construction and engineering deals numbered 544 in the latest settled 12 months, against 416 a year earlier, so the sector rose 30.8%. All deals rose 10.6% over the same windows, from 43,590 to 48,216. Deal size points to the mid-market. Where a value was disclosed, on 13.6% of sector deals, the median was $400 million, against $850 million for infrastructure and $750 million for industrial manufacturing. Mid-market tickets spread across many buyers fit a flat adviser list, where many firms win a few mandates each. A buyer can use that, asking for fixed or capped fees on the smaller transactions.

Sartori & Partners records also show where the work is done. Lawyers in New York worked on 22.2% of construction and engineering deals, against 44.8% of infrastructure deals and 31.9% of industrial manufacturing deals. London follows at 11.8% and Washington, DC at 10.8%. Further down, 6.3% of the sector's deals were handled with lawyers in Houston and 5.3% with lawyers in Munich. The work is less tied to one financial center than in neighboring sectors, which matches the flat adviser list. A company with operations in Texas or Germany can find deal teams that have worked on sector deals close to home.

Start with the corporate panel, because M&A sits on 39.2% of sector deals. Run a real competition for it: the first-ranked adviser sits in the 11-20 band, so no firm can price as the default choice. Ask each candidate for its own sector deal record over 12 months, and weigh mid-market experience, since the disclosed median deal is $400 million. Then buy the construction bench separately. Construction lawyers appear on 8.8% of the sector's deals, well above the market and their core work on claims and project contracts is a separate bench. Pick that bench on disputes record and project experience, not on deal rankings. Review both panels each year: sector deals rose 30.8% year on year, and a flat list can reorder quickly.