Abuse of Dominance Lawyers: Technology Cases, Large-Firm Hiring

Abuse of dominance lawyers spend most of their time on contested matters, and a large part of that work is for technology companies. Sartori & Partners data show that disputes and investigations made up 69.9% of the 93 abuse of dominance matters on record over 3 years, and that technology and software clients accounted for 28.0%. The lateral market for the specialty is small: 62 moves in the 12 months to October 2026. Moves recorded under the antitrust and competition practice made up 15.2% of that practice's lateral moves. For a firm that wants to win this work, the matter mix sets the profile to hire, and the hiring record shows where that profile sits.

The matter record sets abuse of dominance apart inside competition law. Over 3 years, disputes and investigations accounted for 69.9% of the specialty's matters and regulatory and antitrust work for 26.9%. Contested matters ran at 2.6 times the number of regulatory ones. These are matters on record, a measure of activity rather than of fees, but the direction is plain: this is a specialty of claims, defenses and investigations.

The parent practice carries the same litigation weight in its hiring. In the Sartori & Partners lateral database, 52.3% of antitrust and competition moves in 12 months also involved litigation and disputes, against 39.9% of all lateral moves in the market. That is a gap of 12.4 points. For a hiring partner, the first test of a candidate is contested experience: a lawyer who has argued a dominance case before a court or answered a competition authority's investigation, not one whose record is mostly clearances.

Technology and software clients accounted for 28.0% of abuse of dominance matters over 3 years, more than a quarter of the total. That is about the same weight as all regulatory and antitrust matters together, 26.9%, and the two figures share a base: every matter in the specialty. Dominance theories built around platforms, app distribution, online advertising and data access sit naturally with this client base.

The work is also current. The latest 12 months hold 32 of the 93 matters recorded over 3 years, or 34.4%. The flow of matters has kept its pace while lateral hiring stayed level. For a firm, sector knowledge belongs in the job description: a candidate who understands how a technology market makes money reads a dominance theory faster, and a client in that market will test for it in the first meeting.

Sartori & Partners counted 62 abuse of dominance lateral moves in 12 months, and firms of 1,000+ lawyers took 87.1% of them. Across the antitrust and competition practice the same size class took 66.1%, and across the whole market 53.6%. Over 3 years the order holds: 75.7% for the specialty against 67.6% for the practice.

Hiring is also concentrated. The ten most active hirers took 55.2% of the specialty's individual hires in 12 months, against 25.8% in the antitrust practice and 12.9% across the market. Latham & Watkins ranks first, in the 6-10 band of hires.

The candidates come from the same end of the market. Over 3 years, 77.1% of abuse of dominance lawyers who moved had left firms of 1,000+ lawyers. A firm outside that size class should expect its offer to be weighed against a seat on a large competition bench, and should come with a defined docket rather than a promise of one.

Over 3 years, Brussels took 22.5% of abuse of dominance lateral moves and London 17.7%. In the antitrust practice over the same 3 years, Brussels took 10.5% and London 13.4%. Brussels carries 2.1 times the weight in the specialty that it carries in the practice. The city mix follows enforcement: the European Commission runs its dominance cases from Brussels, and London is home to the UK competition authority and its specialist appeal tribunal.

Lawyers in this specialty also change city more often. In 12 months, 25.0% of abuse of dominance moves crossed a city line, against 19.3% in the antitrust practice and 20.5% across the market. A search for this profile starts in Brussels and London. A firm hiring elsewhere should budget for relocation from the first call, since moving cities is a normal part of a move in this work.

Sartori & Partners recorded 76 abuse of dominance lateral moves in the earlier settled 12 months and 61 in the latest, so hiring held flat (-19.7%) year on year. On counts this small the gap is inside the noise. The antitrust practice held flat (+7.7%) over the same windows, while the market as a whole rose 9.0%. Partner arrivals in the specialty held flat (-25.9%), from 27 to 20.

The level mix leans senior. Partners made up 33.9% of abuse of dominance moves in 12 months, against 32.4% in the antitrust practice and 27.7% across the market. Moves that came with a step up in title were 14.5%, against 12.9% market-wide. Firms also build from inside: 25 abuse of dominance lawyers were made partner between June 2025 and May 2026. With a market this thin, a firm that needs a partner should open the search well before the seat is empty.

Hire for contested work first. With 69.9% of matters in disputes and investigations, the candidate who has run a case or an investigation is worth more than one with a longer list of clearances. Then test for sector knowledge: technology and software clients sit behind 28.0% of the work, and a lawyer who has never worked on a technology market will need time the client may not give.

Search Brussels and London before anywhere else, and plan for relocation if the seat is in another city. Expect to compete with the largest platforms, which took 87.1% of the 12-month hires. For a firm building a bench rather than buying a partner, associates were 53.2% of the specialty's moves, and promotion from inside remains open. Hiring has held level, so waiting will not bring a larger pool.