Hire Finance First: Infrastructure Holds 11.6% of All Project Finance

A general counsel choosing between infrastructure law firms is buying a specific kind of work, and the deal record shows what it is. Sartori & Partners data show 585 infrastructure deals in the 12 months to October 2026, and project and infrastructure finance is 19.8% of them, against 2.1% of all dated deals. The tickets are large and unusually visible: values are public on 39.3% of the sector's deals, a higher share than in any other industry we track. Those two facts, more than any firm's brand, should shape the shortlist.

Every deal on record is classed by type. In infrastructure, project and infrastructure finance accounts for 116 deals, or 19.8% of the sector, against 2.1% across the market. The sector is small in deal count, at 1.2% of all dated deals, yet it holds 11.6% of every project finance deal recorded in the year. Capital markets is the largest single type, at 29.2% against 25.7% market-wide, and M&A trails its market share at 15.7% against 19.3%. Contentious work is thin: disputes and investigations make up 4.8% of infrastructure deals, against 25.0% of the market.

Against its neighbors, infrastructure sits between two models. Power and renewables leans further toward project finance, at 24.8% of its deals. Utilities, water and waste, at 4.1%, and government and the public sector, at 5.6%, barely use it. A company with a new asset to finance should test each candidate firm on financings it has closed, then check that the same team can handle a bond issue, since capital markets work is the other large stream in this sector.

The practices recorded on each deal confirm the finance tilt. In the Sartori & Partners deal records, banking and finance lawyers worked on 18.5% of infrastructure deals, against 6.3% of all deals. Projects and infrastructure lawyers appear on 15.0%, against 2.4% market-wide. Capital markets lawyers are the most frequent single practice, at 30.1% against 26.4%, and corporate and M&A lawyers sit close to their market rate, at 22.1% against 23.3%. A deal often carries several practices, so the shares overlap and are not a split of the work.

For the buyer, the staffing question follows. A firm's corporate partner may lead the relationship, but on an infrastructure mandate the hours go to finance and projects lawyers. Ask who those lawyers are by name, how many lenders' or sponsors' financings they ran in the last year, and whether the bond work stays inside the same team or moves to a separate capital markets group.

Deal size is where infrastructure separates from almost every comparison. A value was disclosed on 39.3% of infrastructure deals, the highest rate of any industry in our records; oil and gas follows at 33.3% and utilities, water and waste at 32.5%. Power and renewables discloses on 27.7%. The median disclosed infrastructure deal is $850 million, one of the highest medians among the sectors we follow: above $500 million in power and renewables and $802.5 million in utilities, below $1,000 million in government and the public sector, where values are public on only 22.3% of deals.

Large, public tickets change what a company should expect from counsel. Larger deals tend to bring larger lender groups, so the firm must manage several counterparties at once and keep a document trail that will survive scrutiny. Fees are easier for competitors and boards to benchmark, so an engagement letter with a fixed scope and staged caps is reasonable to ask for. And a firm that sits on many deals of this size will often act for lenders on one project and sponsors on the next: run conflict checks against the whole lender group before the first call, not after.

Infrastructure deals rose 49.1% over the settled 12-month windows, from 385 to 574. All dated deals grew 10.6% over the same months, from 43,590 to 48,216. Among the comparison sectors, utilities, water and waste rose 13.6%, and government and the public sector held flat (+5.1%), at 852 deals against 811.

The calendar-year count for 2026 through October, 494, already passes the full 2025 figure of 414 in our records. More project and bond work for the same finance benches means longer queues. Bring counsel in at the bid or term-sheet stage, and write the names of the partner and senior associate into the engagement terms.

Where the work is done is the third mark of the sector. Sartori & Partners data show that 26.4% of infrastructure deals were handled with lawyers in London, one of the highest London shares among the industries we track. The rate is 19.0% for power and renewables, 16.0% for government and the public sector and 11.9% for utilities, water and waste. New York still leads: lawyers there worked on 44.8% of infrastructure deals, and lawyers in Washington on 18.6%. Frankfurt, Paris, Singapore and Hong Kong each appear on 5.1% or more. One deal can count in several cities, so the shares overlap.

A US company financing an asset abroad, or a European sponsor raising money in New York, will usually need lawyers in both cities on the same deal. Ask how the firm splits the work between offices and who signs off on English-law and New York-law documents.

The adviser ranking shows how the sector's mix reshuffles the usual order. Clifford Chance advised on the most infrastructure deals in the 12 months to October 2026, in the 41-60 band of deals advised; across all deals it ranks 5th. Ranks 2nd to 8th all sit in the 21-40 band, so their order says little. Milbank, Cahill Gordon & Reindel and Linklaters rank in the infrastructure top 10 but not in the top 10 for all deals, where Latham & Watkins ranks first.

Volume ranks are a starting point, not a verdict. With most of the top 10 inside one band, the difference between candidates is the fit of the team to the asset, the jurisdiction and the side of the table: lender, sponsor or public authority.

First, shortlist on project finance, not on sector labels. The work type runs at 9.4 times its market share here, and banking and finance lawyers sit on 18.5% of the deals, so ask for the finance partners and their closed financings. Second, price for size and visibility. With a median disclosed deal of $850 million and values public on 39.3% of deals, fees will be compared, so agree scope and caps up front and clear conflicts across the lender group.

Third, plan for capacity. Deal flow rose 49.1% against 10.6% for all deals, so the finance teams doing this work face more deals than a year ago; engage early and name the team in writing. Fourth, insist on a two-city bench. Lawyers in London worked on 26.4% of infrastructure deals and lawyers in New York on 44.8%, so a firm strong in only one of them will hand part of a cross-border deal to someone else.