Pharma In-House Hiring: Associates Are Only 30.5% of Movers

Anyone hiring in-house counsel at a biotech company is often looking for a junior or mid-level specialist: an associate or counsel who already works on patents, product claims or regulatory questions. Sartori & Partners data show that this is the level the sector's lateral market supplies least. Of the 285 lawyers with a pharma and biotech focus who changed firms in the 12 months to October 2026, 30.5% were associates and 49.1% were partners. Across all practices the mix runs the other way, with associates at 58.5% and partners at 27.7%. Companies, for their part, recruit mostly associates when they hire out of law firms. That leaves a narrow channel with two kinds of buyer at the door.

The level split is where this sector breaks most clearly from the market. Partners were 49.1% of pharma-focused movers, 1.8 times their share across all lateral moves. Associates sit 28.0 points below the market's share. Counsel are close to the market, at 14.4% against 12.7%.

The neighboring life sciences sector is even more top-heavy. Among lawyers with a medical devices focus who moved, partners were 63.3% and associates 21.1%. Health care providers and payors sit nearer the market, with associates at 47.4%, and technology falls in between at 36.3%. The longer view does not soften the pharma pattern: over 36 months associates were 33.5% of the 838 pharma-focused movers, so the 12-month split is no one-year accident.

For a company, this sets the starting odds of a search. A partner-level brief meets a steady stream of movers. An associate brief that insists on sector depth meets a thin one, and needs a longer list of names and more direct approaches to lawyers who are not looking.

Sartori & Partners recorded 953 moves from law firms to companies across all sectors between May and October 2026. Associates were 76.7% of them, about three-quarters, while counsel were 12.0% and partners 11.0%. These figures cover every sector and start in May 2026, so there is no earlier period to set them against. Over the same six months, 11.3% of lawyers who left a firm went to a company, against 86.1% who joined another firm.

Put the two sides together. A pharma or biotech company hiring a junior specialist wants the level companies hire most, in a sector whose movers lean toward partners. Over 12 months, 87 associates with a pharma and biotech focus changed firms, and each of them was hired by a firm that wanted them too. Lateral moves are one channel, not a count of the bench: many associates with sector depth never change firms and can still be approached. But a company that waits for candidates already in motion is choosing from a short list.

Counsel are the one level where the pharma flow runs slightly ahead of the market. They were 14.4% of pharma-focused movers, 41 lawyers in 12 months, against 12.7% across all lateral moves. Over 36 months the counsel share was 13.5%. On the company side, counsel were 12.0% of moves from firms to companies, far below the associate share.

That makes a counsel title a realistic target for a company that would otherwise chase a senior associate. The lawyer has a few more years of sector work, the lateral flow at that level is proportionally larger than in the market as a whole, and companies hire far fewer counsel than associates out of firms. Writing the role at counsel level, with the budget that implies, widens the field more than any change of city or practice label.

128 firms hired at least one pharma-focused lawyer in the past 12 months, out of 1,291 firms that hired laterally across all practices. Over 36 months, the top 10 hirers took 19.8% of pharma-focused moves, against 12.2% for the market in the same window. A small group of firms with deep life sciences practices absorbs a large part of the flow, and those are the firms where a company is most likely to find the associates it wants.

Promotion is not the lure firms use more here than elsewhere. In the Sartori & Partners lateral database, 13.0% of pharma-focused movers joined at a higher title, against 12.9% across the market, a gap of 0.1 points. An in-house offer mostly competes with a sideways move to a firm that knows the sector. The company's levers are the ones a firm at the same level cannot match: scope, proximity to the science and the product, and a path to the head of legal.

The count of partner moves by lawyers with this focus held flat (+3.6%) year on year, 145 in the settled 12-month window against 140 the year before. The market's partner count rose 8.4% over the same windows. The overall pharma-focused count held flat (+2.1%), 296 against 290.

Year by year the flow moves within a band rather than along a line: 305 in 2022, 236 in 2023 and 304 in 2025. Intellectual property is the practice of 42.9% of the partners who moved, an index of 467 against the market's share. Corporate and M&A partners index at 118 and litigation partners at 94, just under the market. Health care regulatory work is the practice of 24.3%; a partner can carry more than one practice, so the shares overlap. Medical devices partners show the same patent tilt, at an index of 515.

For a senior seat, such as head of intellectual property or a deputy general counsel for product, the pool in motion is real and steady, and most of it sits in patent practices. A company that wants a senior patent lawyer in-house has more lateral candidates to work from than one that wants a mid-level associate with the same expertise.

Plan each seat by level. For a partner-level or head-of-function hire, the lateral flow is the deepest it gets in this sector: partners were 49.1% of pharma-focused movers, and patent partners are the largest group. A conventional search works here; the contest is with firms bidding for the same partners, not a shortage of candidates.

For an associate seat, do not wait for movers. Map the associates at the firms in the list above, approach them directly, and accept candidates from adjacent practices, such as general patent litigation or product liability, who can learn the regulatory side in post. Budget more time than for a junior hire in the wider market, where associates are 58.5% of lateral moves.

For a mid-level seat, consider writing the role as counsel. It is the level where the pharma flow runs ahead of the market and where company demand is lightest. Whatever the level, start early: the flow is flat, so no surge of candidates is coming to shorten the search.