Nonprofits Go to Law Firms for Disputes: One Matter at a Time

An executive director or general counsel shortlisting law firms for nonprofits is buying litigation first. Sartori & Partners data show 329 nonprofit and charity deals in the 12 months to October 2026, and disputes and investigations were 70.5% of them, against 25.0% of all deals in the market. Only deals for individual clients, at 91.2%, lean harder toward contested work. Three further facts set the sector apart: public law lawyers appear on its deals far more often than anywhere else, Washington carries more of the work than New York, and each client brings fewer deals than in any other sector. Together they describe how a charity, foundation or association buys outside counsel: one contested matter at a time, from a firm picked for that matter.

Measured against the whole deal market, contested work weighs far more here than in a typical sector: disputes and investigations were 70.5% of nonprofit deals and 25.0% of all deals. The type covers lawsuits, regulatory inquiries and investigations in which a nonprofit is a party. Two neighboring sectors show how unusual that mix is. Disputes were 61.5% of education deals and 44.6% of government and public sector deals, both well above the market and both below nonprofits. Every other deal type, from M&A to financings and property transactions, was too small among nonprofit deals to report on its own.

For a nonprofit legal head, that makes the litigation partner the relationship that matters, not the transaction team. A firm's record on mergers and financings says little about how it will defend a grant dispute, answer a subpoena or handle a regulator's questions about a program. Judge the trial and investigations bench first, and treat deal credentials as a secondary point.

Sorted by practice, the same deals show who does the work. Public Law & Government lawyers worked on 25.5% of nonprofit deals and 1.8% of all deals, a rate 14.2 times the market's. No sector in the Sartori & Partners records carries a higher public law share: government and public sector deals carry it at 21.5%, education deals at 21.1% and deals for individual clients at 18.7%. Intellectual Property comes next for nonprofits, on 18.5% of the sector's deals against 11.1% market-wide. Corporate & M&A runs the other way, at 6.4% of nonprofit deals against 23.3% of all deals.

Practice shares overlap, since one deal can involve several practices, so each is read on its own and they are never added together. The consequence for a buyer is specific. When a matter touches tax-exempt status, grant conditions, public funding or a government decision, the firm's public law bench is the second test after its trial team, and it is fair to ask for the names of the public law partners who will staff the matter before signing an engagement letter.

Where the work is done points the same way. Lawyers in Washington worked on 29.7% of nonprofit deals and lawyers in New York on 21.3%, a gap of 8.4 points. That Washington share is the highest the city reaches in any sector. Government and public sector deals, which might be expected to lean on the capital, run the other way: 24.9% of them were handled with lawyers in New York and 17.8% with lawyers in Washington. Education and individual-client deals also put Washington first, at 16.7% and 26.1%, but by narrower margins over New York, at 14.4% and 20.3%. Chicago, Los Angeles and London follow for nonprofits, at 8.4%, 8.1% and 7.8%.

One deal can count in several cities, so these shares overlap and are not a split of the work. For a nonprofit based away from the capital, the practical question in a pitch is which office will lead the matter and which will only support it. The sector's public law work gathers in Washington, so a local team without a Washington partner on the file may be the wrong fit for a matter with a government angle.

Sartori & Partners counted 227 distinct nonprofit clients behind 329 deals, or 1.4 deals per client. That is the lowest ratio of any sector in the records. Education clients brought 1.9 deals each, government and public sector clients 2.2 and individual clients 2.2. A low ratio points to occasional buying: an organization in a dispute hires counsel for that dispute, rather than placing a steady stream of work with one panel firm.

Volume did not move much. The nonprofit deal count held flat (+9.4%), from 309 to 338 in the settled 12-month window, while the whole deal market rose 10.6%, from 43,590 to 48,216. The two percentages look alike, but on a few hundred deals the nonprofit change sits inside normal year-to-year noise, so the sector's demand reads as steady. For the buyer, the matter-by-matter pattern is a lever: with no standing volume to protect, each new dispute is a fresh selection, and fees, staffing and conflicts can be settled for that matter alone.

In Sartori & Partners deal records, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher worked on 11-20 of the sector's deals in the 12 months, and the next nine firms, from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Jenner & Block to Venable, each sat in the 6-10 band. Ranks inside one band do not separate the firms. The scale is small beside public bodies, where the busiest adviser sat in the 21-40 band on 852 deals. Some names recur across neighboring sectors: Jones Day ranks 9th among advisers on education deals and 9th on deals for individual clients, and Leigh Day ranks 7th on individual-client deals.

With disputes at 70.5% of the sector's deals, read this list as a shortlist to test, not a ranking to follow. Ask each firm which of its nonprofit matters were contested, who led them and from which office, and compare the answers with the matter on your desk.

Hire for the dispute in front of you. Disputes and investigations were 70.5% of the sector's deals, so the first test of any firm is the trial or investigations partner who would run the matter. Make public law the second test: Sartori & Partners figures put Public Law & Government lawyers on 25.5% of nonprofit deals. Ask which office leads, since lawyers in Washington worked on 29.7% of the sector's deals. Use the low repeat rate, 1.4 deals per client, to run a short competition for each new matter instead of defaulting to last year's firm. Steady volume gives no reason to skip that step. In-house hiring is a separate question: the lawyers with a nonprofit focus who change firms lean to tax and private client work, which the companion report on the nonprofit tax bench covers.