DC Intellectual Property Hiring: Top 10 Firms Take 36.4%

Washington DC intellectual property lateral hiring is a market of few buyers. Sartori & Partners data show that the top 10 hiring firms took 36.4% of the 110 intellectual property lateral moves into Washington in the 12 months to October 2026. For the practice as a whole the same measure is 15.2%, and for Washington across all practices it is 19.8%. The city matters to the practice: it holds 10.5% of intellectual property moves, while it holds 5.6% of all lateral moves. For a firm planning an intellectual property hire in Washington, that combination means a deep market with a narrow set of rival bidders.

In the Sartori & Partners lateral database, the top 10 intellectual property hirers in Washington took 36.4% of lateral moves over 12 months. That is 2.4 times the share the top 10 hold in the practice as a whole. It is also 16.6 points above the share the top 10 hold across every Washington practice.

The concentration sits on top of a long tail. A total of 64 firms hired at least one intellectual property lawyer in Washington over the year, yet the top 10 among them took 36.4% of the moves. The practice counted 352 hiring firms across the market and Washington counted 194 across practices. For a firm planning a search, the useful list is short: the firms below are the ones a Washington candidate is most likely to be weighing an offer from.

Winston Taylor heads the Washington list in the 6-10 band of lawyers hired; the other nine each sit in the 3-5 band. Five of these ten names also appear on the practice-wide list below, among them Morrison & Foerster, first across the practice and 5th in Washington. The other five, including Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, are on the Washington list without making the practice-wide one, which makes them Washington-specific competitors for intellectual property talent.

The concentration is not a partner story. Partners made up 35.5% of Washington intellectual property lateral moves in the 12 months, against 34.4% across the practice and 37.7% across all Washington practices. Associates made up 47.3%, against 49.7% for the practice. With a level mix this close to the practice norm, the short list of buyers does not come from a tilt toward senior hires.

Partner volume gives no sign of a surge either. Washington intellectual property partner hiring held flat (+17.9%) on the settled 12-month count, 33 moves against 28 a year earlier. Partner hiring across Washington rose 18.2% over the same windows. A firm searching for an intellectual property partner in the city is drawing on a steady pool, not a growing one, and should treat the Washington list above, which counts hires at every level, as its first map of rival bidders.

Over the last 3 years the top 10 hirers took 26.6% of Washington intellectual property moves; in the latest 12 months they took 36.4%, a gap of 9.8 points. Across the practice the same comparison runs from 12.5% to 15.2%. Across all Washington practices it barely moved, from 19.6% to 19.8%. The tightening is far sharper in Washington intellectual property than in the practice, and absent from the city as a whole.

It did not come with a clear rise in volume. Washington intellectual property hiring held flat (+19.5%) on the settled 12-month count, 104 moves against 87, a gap that counts this small can show by chance. The practice as a whole held flat (+7.2%), while Washington across practices rose 12.4%. The names at the top also rotate: Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton heads the 3-year list, Winston Taylor the latest 12 months. An old competitor map is out of date; refresh it before each search.

Sartori & Partners data show 60.7% of Washington intellectual property lateral moves landed in firms of 1,000+ lawyers, against 48.6% across the practice. Measured against the city, the reading reverses: 67.1% of all Washington moves went to firms of that size, 6.4 points more than in intellectual property. Washington intellectual property is a big-firm market by the standard of the practice, and a little less so by the standard of its own city.

Against the practice, the small end is thin: firms under 150 lawyers took 5.6% of Washington intellectual property moves, against 12.6% across the practice and 4.2% across Washington. Against the city, the difference sits in the middle: firms of 150-399 lawyers took 15.9%, against 9.0% citywide. The big-firm share has also climbed: it was 53.6% over 3 years. For a firm below the largest size class, the band of firms with 150-399 lawyers is where Washington intellectual property hiring runs ahead of the city, while the small-firm route that the practice offers elsewhere is narrow in Washington.

On the data date, law-firm career pages listed 83 intellectual property openings in Washington. The figure is a stock on one day, not a count of roles posted over a period. It equals 8.7% of the 949 openings labeled intellectual property and 12.2% of the 681 openings placed in Washington. On lateral moves, Washington holds 10.5% of the practice and intellectual property makes up 13.9% of the city, so openings sit a little below the hiring shares on both sides. Many postings carry no practice label or no single city, so treat these shares as a rough size.

For a hiring firm, the count says demand is live today and roughly in proportion to past hiring. The concentration figures say something the openings cannot: who will be bidding against you once a candidate starts to talk.

Treat the Washington top 10 as the competitor set for any intellectual property hire in the city, and their 36.4% share of moves as the reason to do so. The practice-wide list is a weaker guide here, because five of the ten Washington names are not on it. Benchmark offers against the firms on the Washington list, not against the practice average.

Expect candidates to come from large platforms. Over 3 years, 58.2% of Washington intellectual property movers left a firm of 1,000+ lawyers, against 55.5% across the practice. A firm of 400-999 lawyers, which took 17.8% of Washington moves against 24.2% across the practice, needs a reason for a big-firm lawyer to change scale: a practice to lead, a clearer partnership route, or a client base not split with many peers.

Keep the search fast. With volume flat and the top of the market taking a growing slice, a candidate who enters the market meets the same short list of buyers again and again. A firm that has mapped those rivals, and knows where their Washington benches are thin, can make its approach before the shortlist closes.