Real Estate Legal Work Splits in Two: Property and Capital Markets

A general counsel who reviews the real estate law firms on a company panel is buying two different products under one budget line. Sartori & Partners data show 2,164 deals for real estate clients in the 12 months to October 2026, 4.5% of every deal recorded across all sectors, spread over 1,000 distinct clients. Property transactions are the first product: they make up 36.3% of the sector's work against 2.8% of the whole market. Capital markets financing is the second, at 26.4%. Each is handled by a different group of lawyers, and the evidence that a firm is strong in one says little about the other.

The deal type for property acquisitions, sales, leasing and development is 36.3% of real estate deals. Across all deals it is 2.8%, which puts real estate companies at 13.0 times the market's rate. These companies are also the main customer for this work: deals for real estate clients are 58.1% of every property transaction recorded in the market. The rest of the mix is thinner than elsewhere. Disputes and investigations, 25.0% of all deals, are 11.4% of real estate work, and M&A sits at 7.9% against 19.3% market-wide.

Because real estate companies supply most of the property deal flow, firms build their property groups around this client base. That gives the buyer weight on staffing, rates and response times in the part of the budget where it matters most to the firm.

The second buying decision looks nothing like the first. Capital markets deals are 26.4% of real estate work, about a quarter of the total, against 25.7% across all deals, a gap of 0.7 points. Here real estate companies are a small customer. Their deals are 4.6% of all capital markets transactions in the Sartori & Partners record, so the lawyers who run their bond and equity issues spend most of the year on issuers from other sectors.

Banking and lending is the third strand, and the one most often folded into the property panel without a separate test. It is 5.0% of real estate deals against 3.3% market-wide, 1.5 times the market's share. Secured loans and refinancing of property portfolios sit behind much of it. A firm's capital markets credentials should be judged on its full issuer book, and its lending team checked on its own, not inferred from the property client list.

Practice credits show who staffs the work. Real estate lawyers appear on 38.4% of the sector's deals and capital markets lawyers on 27.4%. Corporate and M&A lawyers follow at 12.7% and banking and finance lawyers at 9.6%. Set against the market, real estate lawyers appear at 13.2 times their usual share, capital markets lawyers close to theirs at 26.4%, and banking and finance lawyers above their 6.3% market share.

The work rarely crosses between the groups. Across the market, real estate lawyers are credited on 80.5% of property transactions, and capital markets lawyers on 98.5% of capital markets deals. The property strand and the financing strand are staffed by separate teams, even when both sit inside one firm. A panel review that scores a firm on its property group alone tells a company nothing about the team that will run its next bond issue.

Values are published on 23.0% of real estate deals, and the median disclosed deal is $401.2 million. That is below the median for asset management and funds clients at $750 million, financial sponsors at $700 million and infrastructure at $850 million. Buyers also come back often: the 1,000 distinct real estate clients average 2.2 deals each, against 1.9 for asset management clients and 2.1 for sponsors.

Volume is growing, though more slowly than the market as a whole. Real estate deals rose 6.8% year on year, to 2,138 from 2,001, while all deals rose 10.6%, to 48,216 from 43,590. For a buyer, regular mid-sized repeat work favors fixed or capped fees per deal and a standing team that already knows the portfolio.

Latham & Watkins advised on 101-150 real estate deals, alone in that band. Sidley Austin, Greenberg Traurig and Clifford Chance follow at 61-100. Several names on the sector list are absent from the market-wide top 10, among them Greenberg Traurig, Paul Hastings and Venable. In the other direction, Davis Polk & Wardwell and Kirkland & Ellis, ranked 2nd and 3rd across all deals, do not appear in the sector's top 10.

The work is done mostly in the large financial centers. In the 12 months, 31.7% of the sector's deals were handled with lawyers in New York, 12.8% with lawyers in London and 11.5% with lawyers in Washington, DC. One deal can count in several cities, so these shares overlap and add to more than the whole. A company with assets outside these centers should still expect much of the senior work on its deals to be run from one of them, and should ask which office leads before the mandate.

The lateral market points the same way. Of the 1,135 lawyers with a real estate focus who changed firms in 12 months, 33.7% also carried banking and finance work, an index of 242 against the market's share for the same practice. Lawyers who combine property and lending do exist, and a company can ask its panel to put one on the account.

Run two panel tracks, not one. Score property firms on transaction volume in the sector, where real estate clients are 58.1% of the market and have the weight to set terms. Score capital markets firms on their issuer work across every sector, since real estate companies are a minor customer there and the team's depth comes from other clients. Give lending its own line on the scorecard: it runs at 1.5 times its market share in this sector, and it is the strand most likely to be assumed rather than tested.

Use the firm list as a long list, not an answer. A firm that ranks high on property deals may staff its financing work from a different office and partner group, so ask each firm to name both teams before the mandate. On cost, a median disclosed deal of $401.2 million supports fixed or capped deal fees, and Sartori & Partners sees no reason in the deal mix to pay capital markets rates for routine property work.