Why Utilities Hire Capital Markets Lawyers: 60.9% of Their Deals

A general counsel who reviews a panel of utility law firms is, in practice, reviewing a capital markets panel. Sartori & Partners data show that capital markets work was 60.9% of the 949 utilities, water and waste deals in the 12 months to October 2026. Across the whole deal market the same type was 25.7%, so utilities carry it at 2.4 times the market rate. No other sector in our deal records reaches that share: the nearest, electronics and semiconductors, sat at 52.7%, and banks at 48.8%. This report sets out what that mix means for who advises utilities, where the work is done, and how a company should build and price its outside counsel bench.

The gap holds when the deals are sorted by practice instead of type. Capital Markets lawyers worked on 62.3% of utility deals, against 26.4% of all deals. The rest of the typed mix is thin by comparison. M&A appeared on 13.9% of utility deals against 19.3% market-wide, and disputes and investigations on 6.7% against 25.0%. Some deals carry no type and still sit in the base, so these shares are read against each other, not as a complete split of the work.

The other energy sectors show how unusual the mix is. Capital markets was 40.2% of oil and gas deals and 25.2% of power and renewables deals, where project and infrastructure finance took 24.8%. Utilities buy some of that work too: projects and infrastructure lawyers worked on 4.6% of utility deals, against 2.4% of all deals. Regulated utilities fund their capital spending with frequent bond and note offerings from operating and holding companies, so the work returns on a calendar rather than in bursts.

The consequence for a utility is direct: its panel is mainly a debt issuance panel. The partner who matters most is the one who runs the shelf offerings and the disclosure work year after year. The M&A or litigation relationship is a smaller, separate decision and can be bought from a different firm.

Sartori & Partners ranks firms by the number of utility deals they advised on and publishes each count as a band. Hunton Andrews Kurth ranks first, in the 151-250 band. Latham & Watkins, Davis Polk & Wardwell and A&O Shearman follow in the 41-60 band, and the firms ranked 5th to 10th sit in 21-40.

That gap at the top is rare. Across the whole deal market the first three firms share the 1,200+ band, and in banks the first four share 151-250, so no single name pulls away. In utilities one firm stands several bands clear of every rival. Hunton Andrews Kurth also ranks 5th in power and renewables, in the 61-100 band, so its energy work reaches past utilities.

For a company, that concentration cuts both ways. The firm at the top has seen more utility offerings than anyone and can staff and price them with confidence. It also means much of the sector's issuance experience sits in one place, which makes conflicts and fee leverage real questions. A second firm from the 41-60 band, briefed on the shelf and given an occasional offering, is the practical hedge.

The city figures show where the work is done: the share of a sector's deals, among those with a known lawyer location, that had lawyers working on them from each city. One deal can count in several cities, so the shares overlap and add to more than the whole, and each compares only with the same figure in another sector. Lawyers in Houston worked on 22.1% of utility deals, and lawyers in Dallas on 17.6%. In power and renewables the same shares were 12.2% and 5.3%, and lawyers in Houston worked on 3.0% of bank deals. Only oil and gas runs higher, at 48.2% for Houston and 22.2% for Dallas.

New York still comes first: 46.3% of utility deals were handled with lawyers there, above its share of oil and gas deals at 42.0%. London plays a smaller part: lawyers there worked on 11.9% of utility deals, against 16.0% of bank deals. A company that limits its panel search to New York misses where much of the sector's offering work is staffed. Texas offices of national firms, and firms based in Texas, belong on the shortlist even for an issuer headquartered elsewhere.

Values were made public on 32.5% of utility deals. Where they were, the median was $802.5 million, above oil and gas at $750 million, banks at $660 million and power and renewables at $500 million. The disclosed share is close to oil and gas, at 33.3%, and above power and renewables, at 27.7%, so the utility median rests on a comparable slice of deals.

Large tickets that return several times a year change the fee conversation. A utility that issues on a calendar can ask for program pricing across a year of offerings instead of deal-by-deal fees, and it has the volume to make that request credible with any firm on its panel.

Sartori & Partners counted 978 utility deals in the settled 12-month window to September 2026, against 861 a year earlier: deal volume rose 13.6%. Across all sectors the count rose 10.6% over the same windows, from 43,590 to 48,216.

Lateral moves are one hiring channel only, but they show where utility specialists sit. 57 lawyers with a utilities focus changed firms in the 12 months to October 2026. The settled count held flat (+13.5%), from 52 to 59, and 68.4% of those lawyers carried a regulatory and compliance practice, against 2.9% of all lateral moves.

A rising deal year keeps the main capital markets teams busy, so booking counsel for the next offering early and agreeing staffing for the calendar matters more than usual. The regulatory lawyers who change firms form a separate bench from the issuance teams, and most utilities need both.

Build the panel around the issuance calendar. With capital markets at 60.9% of utility deals, the firm that runs the offerings is the core relationship, and M&A, at 13.9%, is the occasional mandate. Test the concentration at the top: one firm sits in the 151-250 band, so ask a firm from the 41-60 band to price a sample offering and make the comparison real.

Look beyond New York. Lawyers in Dallas worked on 17.6% of utility deals, and lawyers in Houston on 22.1%. Use the volume: with a median disclosed deal of $802.5 million repeated across a year, program fee terms are a reasonable ask. When hiring in-house, the Sartori & Partners figures point to two separate searches, one for a securities lawyer who can manage the offering calendar and one for a regulatory lawyer, rather than one generalist asked to cover both.