Venture Work Sits on 16.6% of Fintech Deals, Against 3.8% Market-Wide

General counsel who shortlist law firms for fintech companies should start from the work the sector actually sends out. Sartori & Partners data show venture and growth financings on 16.6% of fintech and payments deals in the 12 months to October 2026, against 3.8% of all deals. M&A sits above the market rate too, at 29.4% against 19.3%, while disputes and investigations run well below it, at 15.0% against 25.0%. The sector's deal count held flat over the year, at 487 in the latest settled 12 months against 506 a year earlier. The panel this calls for is built around funding rounds and sale processes, with litigation as a smaller, separate line.

Venture and growth deals numbered 82 in fintech and payments over 12 months. Fintech companies buy this work at about four times the market's rate: the sector's share is 4.4 times the share across all deals. A type share divides by every deal the sector logged, including deals with no type recorded, so each figure stands on its own and none of them is added to another.

Technology and software is the fair benchmark, because funding rounds are routine there. It carries venture and growth deals on 15.3% of its deals, close to the fintech figure of 16.6%, and M&A on 30.0% against 29.4% in fintech. Banks and financial institutions buy a different mix: capital markets deals sit on 48.8% of their deals, against 21.9% in fintech. On deal type, a payments company looks like a software company that happens to move money, not like a bank.

So the financing counsel on a fintech panel needs a working venture practice, not only a bank-finance one. Ask each shortlisted firm which priced rounds and growth equity deals its team closed for fintech and payments companies in the past year, and which partner runs the investor negotiation.

M&A appears on 29.4% of fintech and payments deals, against 19.3% market-wide, a gap of 10.1 points. Disputes and investigations go the other way: 15.0% of fintech deals against 25.0% of all deals. In counts, the sector logged 74 disputes matters in 12 months, beside 145 M&A deals and 82 funding rounds.

Part of the market's disputes figure is intellectual property cases taken from public court and trademark-office records. That does not explain the fintech gap: intellectual property lawyers worked on 9.7% of fintech deals against 11.1% of all deals, close to the market rate. Digital assets companies, the nearest neighbor on regulation, show the same disputes share, 15.0% of their deals against 15.0% for fintech, but lean to capital markets instead, at 38.0%, where fintech sits at 21.9%, under the market's 25.7%.

For a fintech general counsel this sets the order of spending. Litigation counsel can sit on a short list called matter by matter; the lead relationship belongs with the firm that runs rounds and sales.

The practice records point the same way. In Sartori & Partners deal records, corporate and M&A lawyers worked on 45.4% of fintech and payments deals, against 23.3% of all deals and 47.8% of technology and software deals. Capital markets lawyers sit near the market, at 23.7% against 26.4%, and banking and finance lawyers worked on 6.3% of fintech deals, against 6.3% market-wide.

Financial services regulatory lawyers are the sector's mark on a deal. They worked on 5.9% of fintech deals, against 3.6% of bank deals. Fintech and payments carries 1.0% of all deals in the market, yet it holds 12.2% of every deal on record with a financial services regulatory lawyer on it.

A round or sale in this sector therefore needs a regulatory lawyer inside the deal team, not on call after signing. Ask whether the regulatory lawyer named in the pitch has handled change-of-control approvals for payment or money-transmission licenses, and how early that lawyer joins the term sheet.

Volume did not follow the market. The fintech and payments deal count held flat (-3.8%) between the two latest settled 12-month windows, from 506 to 487, while all deals rose 10.6%. Technology and software held flat (+4.6%), and digital assets and crypto held flat (-8.9%), while banks and financial institutions rose 7.2%.

Read the bars for direction only, since earlier years rest on fewer reporting firms. The ten months of 2026 on record hold 407 fintech deals; the full year 2025 held 511. Deal size sits close to technology's: a value is disclosed on 32.0% of fintech deals against 25.5% in technology and software, and the median disclosed fintech deal is $237.9 million, against $250 million. Bank deals run larger, at a median of $660 million.

Flat volume in a rising market gives the buyer room. Firms are not short of fintech capacity this year, so a company can ask for named partners, fixed staffing and a fee cap on its next round and expect firms to commit in writing.

Davis Polk & Wardwell advised on the most fintech and payments deals in 12 months, in the 41-60 band. Latham & Watkins and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati follow in the 21-40 band, and four firms share the 11-20 band after them. The first three each head a neighboring sector: Davis Polk & Wardwell ranks first for banks and financial institutions, Latham & Watkins for digital assets and crypto, and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati for technology and software.

Set against the market-wide list, the venture tilt shows in the names. Davis Polk & Wardwell and Latham & Watkins rank 2nd and 1st across all deals, but three firms in the fintech top 10 sit outside the market's top 10: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian and Fenwick & West. All three are in the technology and software top 10, at 1st, 9th and 5th.

Bands count deals of every type, so a rank is not proof of venture depth, and the three firms in the 6-10 band are close in volume. Ask each firm on a shortlist for its fintech funding rounds and sale processes, with the partner who led each, and set the venture names against the firms that carry the most M&A.

A city share here is the portion of fintech deals, among those with a known lawyer location, that had lawyers in that city working on them. Shares overlap, because one deal can involve several cities. New York comes first, with lawyers there on 43.6% of fintech and payments deals, against 38.7% of technology and software deals and 36.8% of bank deals. London and Washington, DC follow at 18.4% and 18.4%.

The venture weight does not pull fintech work west the way it does in technology. Lawyers in San Francisco worked on 13.7% of fintech deals against 18.1% of technology deals, and lawyers in Palo Alto on 9.3% against 10.5%. London lawyers worked on 18.4% of fintech deals against 15.0% in technology, and Paris shows up at 6.3%, against 5.2% of bank deals.

For a company based outside New York, expect a round or a sale to be run at least in part from New York or London. Ask a firm where the partners on your deal actually sit, and whether a West Coast team or a London team will carry the daily work.

Staff the panel for transactions first. Venture and growth deals sit on 16.6% of fintech deals against 3.8% market-wide, and M&A on 29.4% against 19.3%, so the lead firm should show both funding-round and sale-side work in the sector. Disputes, on 15.0% of fintech deals, can go to a smaller list of litigation firms called when a matter arises.

Put a financial services regulatory lawyer inside the deal team: the sector holds 12.2% of the market's deals with such a lawyer on them. Use the flat deal count, 487 against 506, to negotiate staffing and fees rather than compete for a firm's attention. Hiring is a different question from buying, and our report on the fintech regulatory lawyer bench covers the lawyers who changed firms.