Lateral Level Mix by Practice: Regulatory Teams Hire Partners

Which practice areas hire the most lateral partners? The answer changes depending on whether you count heads or read the mix. Sartori & Partners data show partners made 47.9% of lateral moves in financial services regulatory over the 12 months to October 2026, against 27.7% across all practices. Regulatory and compliance, at 42.5%, restructuring and insolvency, at 41.5%, and white collar, investigations and criminal work, at 41.6%, also sit well above the market line. Employment and labor sits below it, at 22.4%, and litigation matches it almost exactly. For a firm planning its next lateral hire, the title mix of the target practice says more about the search ahead than its volume does.

Financial services regulatory is small by volume: 234 lateral moves in 12 months, or 1.7% of the market. What sets it apart is who moves. Partners made 47.9% of those moves, 20.2 points above the market's 27.7%, while associates made 37.6%, against 58.5% across all practices. Counsel, at 14.5%, sit a little above the market's 12.7%.

Financial services regulatory and regulatory and compliance are the only practices in which partner moves outnumber associate moves. Regulatory and compliance recorded 173 partner moves against 165 associate moves; financial services regulatory recorded 112 against 88. Everywhere else, associates are the larger group.

Partner hiring in financial services regulatory is also concentrated. The top 10 partner hirers took 37.8% of the practice's partner moves, against 13.5% for the top 10 partner hirers across the market. Firms of 1,000+ lawyers received 66.7% of the practice's lateral moves, against 53.6% market-wide.

For a firm building a regulatory bench, the search is a partner search from the first day. The candidate pool is small, a handful of large firms absorb much of it, and an associate pipeline will not fill the gap, because associates are the smaller group of movers in this practice. Budget for direct approaches to named partners at rival firms rather than waiting for applications.

A second group sits between the regulatory practices and the market. In the Sartori & Partners lateral database, partners made 41.5% of restructuring and insolvency lateral moves and associates 43.3%, a gap of 1.8 points. White collar, investigations and criminal work shows the same shape, with partners at 41.6% and associates at 45.2%. Measured against the market, the partner share runs 13.8 points higher in restructuring and 13.9 points higher in white collar.

Restructuring adds a twist. Of its lateral moves, 16.5% took the lawyer to a higher title than the one left, against 12.9% across the market and 13.4% in white collar. It also runs above both regulatory practices: 13.7% in financial services regulatory and 14.7% in regulatory and compliance. A step-up means joining as partner after leaving as counsel or associate, or joining as counsel after leaving as associate: in restructuring, the title on offer is part of the pitch more often than in the market as a whole.

For a restructuring or white collar head, the even split argues for two parallel tracks: a partner search aimed at sitting partners, and an associate search that runs on its own timetable. In restructuring, a third track is open: lawyers move up a title on the move more often than in the market, so a firm that offers the partner title can compete for senior counsel a rival has not yet promoted.

Employment and labor is the 4th largest practice by lateral volume, with 1,512 moves in 12 months, and its mix is the mirror image of the regulatory group. Associates made 61.6% of its lateral moves, the highest associate share of any practice in the Sartori & Partners data. Partners made 22.4%, which is 5.3 points below the market's 27.7%. Only immigration, a far smaller practice with 118 moves, records a lower partner share, at 22.0%.

In absolute terms the practice moved 932 associates and 339 partners, a ratio of 2.7 associates for every partner. Counsel made 15.2%, above the market's 12.7%. Immigration stands out on that count too: counsel were 24.6% of its lateral moves, the largest counsel share of any practice.

For an employment group, associate seats can usually be filled from a deep and active pool, so the associate search is a matter of pace and selection. The partner hire is the scarce move. A firm that wants an employment partner should treat it as a separate project with its own timeline, not as an add-on to an associate search.

Litigation and disputes is where the market average comes from. Its partner share, 27.4%, sits 0.3 points from the market figure, and its associate share, 57.7%, is just as close to the market's 58.5%. That is no accident: litigation is involved in 39.9% of all lateral moves, so its mix weighs heavily on the total.

Share and count tell different stories here. Litigation recorded 1,543 lateral partner moves in 12 months, 13.8 times the 112 in financial services regulatory, and it was involved in 39.5% of all partner moves. A practice with an average mix can still be the largest partner market by a wide margin.

For a litigation chair, scarcity is rarely the problem. There are many partner candidates in any year; the work lies in screening for portable business and fit, and in moving faster than the other firms looking at the same names.

Match the search to the mix. Where partners are 47.9% of moves, as in financial services regulatory, or 42.5%, as in regulatory and compliance, plan for a partner market: a short list of candidates, a concentrated group of buyers, and direct approaches from the start.

In restructuring, with 16.5% of moves bringing a step up in title, look beyond sitting partners. A senior counsel ready for partnership is a credible alternative, and the partner title itself becomes part of the offer.

In employment and labor, where associates are 61.6% of moves, build the associate bench laterally and on a steady rhythm. Treat a partner hire as its own mandate with its own timeline.

In litigation, 1,543 partner moves a year mean the pool is wide. Speed of decision and a clear case for the platform win candidates more often than reach does.