Telecom Deals Carry the Highest Median Value: Run the Pitch Wide

A general counsel shortlisting telecom law firms is buying help on large transactions. Sartori & Partners data show that telecom deals with a published value had a median of $1,077.5 million in the 12 months to October 2026, the highest median of any industry we track. The sector logged 492 deals in that period, for 209 distinct clients. This report looks at what those deals are, who advised on them and where the work was done, and what that means for the way a telecom company picks and prices its outside counsel.

Capital-heavy sectors all run large medians, and telecom sits above them. The median disclosed telecom deal was $1,077.5 million, 1.4 times the oil and gas median of $750 million. Utilities, water and waste came in at $802.5 million and media and entertainment at $753 million. The gap over utilities is 275 million dollars at the midpoint.

The figure describes only the deals that disclose a value: 29.7% of telecom deals did, against 33.3% in oil and gas, 32.5% in utilities and 10.3% in media. Values are published more often on listed offerings and large acquisitions, so the median speaks for the visible deals, not for every mandate. For the buyer of legal services, the point is the size of the deals that do get priced in public. A mandate of that scale carries a fee large enough that several firms will compete hard for it, and a company should make them.

The deal mix explains much of the size. Capital markets deals were 34.6% of telecom deals, against 25.7% of all deals in the Sartori & Partners records. M&A was 26.2% of telecom deals, against 19.3% market-wide. Banking and lending, at 5.7%, also ran above the market's 3.3%. Disputes and investigations went the other way: 13.2% of telecom deals against 25.0% of all deals. Each share is taken over every telecom deal, including those with no recorded type, so the types do not add up to the sector's work.

Staffing tells the same story. Capital markets lawyers worked on 35.6% of telecom deals, against 26.4% of all deals, and banking and finance lawyers on 10.4% against 6.3%. A deal can carry several practices, so these shares overlap. A telecom company's outside counsel spend is weighted to priced financings and acquisitions. That is the work to benchmark first, because it is where a firm's sector record is deepest and where rival firms can be compared like for like.

Latham & Watkins advised on the most telecom deals in the 12 months to October, in the 21-40 band of deals advised. Every firm from Cravath, Swaine & Moore in 2nd place to Freshfields in 10th sits in the next band down, 11-20. Oil and gas looks very different: its first firm sits in the 151-250 band and its tenth in 21-40. Utilities shows a similar drop, from 151-250 at the top to 21-40 in tenth place.

A flat top 10 is a buyer's market. No firm holds the telecom deal flow the way a single adviser can in a resource sector, so no firm can claim it is the only safe choice. Four names on the telecom list, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Milbank, Linklaters and Freshfields, are absent from the top 10 for all deals, which shows the sector has its own regulars beside the market's busiest advisers. Invite three or four of these firms to pitch, ask each for the telecom deals its proposed partners ran in person, and let the fee and the team, not the sector label, decide.

Lawyers in New York worked on 45.4% of telecom deals, much as in other sectors. The difference is London: lawyers there worked on 27.5% of telecom deals, against 19.3% of oil and gas deals, 11.9% of utilities deals and 13.6% of media deals. Paris lawyers worked on 9.2% of telecom deals, against 3.8% of media deals. One deal can count in several cities, so these shares overlap and are read one at a time.

Washington lawyers worked on 17.6% of telecom deals; the regulatory bench there is the subject of our companion report on telecom lawyers in Washington, which follows lateral moves rather than deals. For a company with operations or financing on both sides of the Atlantic, the London figure matters most: ask every firm on the shortlist who in London would staff the deal, and treat a pitch that is New York only as incomplete.

Telecom deal flow held flat (+3.6%) across the settled 12-month windows, at 495 deals against 478 a year before. Across all sectors, deals rose 10.6%, from 43,590 to 48,216. Media and entertainment held flat (+4.2%), while utilities, water and waste rose 13.6%.

Telecom clients come back often. In the Sartori & Partners deal records, 209 distinct clients stood behind the 492 telecom deals, or 2.4 deals per client, against 1.8 in media and 2.5 in oil and gas. A steady flow of large deals from a client list this short means each client is worth a great deal to the firms in the list above. While the wider deal market grows, those firms have other work, but the telecom mandates are few and large, and losing one to a rival shows on a firm's sector record.

First, price the deal size into the process. With a median disclosed value of $1,077.5 million, staffing and hours drive the bill more than the rate card. Ask for a team plan and a fee range tied to it before the mandate is awarded. Second, run a contest. The firms ranked 2nd to 10th sit in one band, 11-20, so a pitch among three or four of them is a fair comparison, not a formality.

Third, split the shortlist by work type. Capital markets deals were 34.6% of telecom deals and disputes and investigations 13.2%, against 25.0% across the market, so a firm's telecom name rests on offerings and acquisitions; test its contentious bench separately. Fourth, check the London team. With London lawyers on 27.5% of telecom deals, a cross-border financing needs both offices named in the engagement letter.