Antitrust Litigation Hiring: Wider Than Merger Control

Antitrust litigation lateral hiring is spread across more of the market than the rest of competition law. Sartori & Partners data show that firms of 1,000+ lawyers took 57.3% of antitrust litigation hires in the 12 months to October 2026. In merger control, the other large specialty inside the antitrust practice, the same tier of firms took 85.2%. Across the antitrust and competition practice as a whole the figure was 66.1%, and in the whole lateral market 53.6%. Antitrust litigation sits much closer to the market than to its sibling. For a firm below the largest tier, that is the opening: litigators in this field join mid-size platforms at a rate that merger lawyers do not.

The gap at the top of the size scale is 27.9 points between the two specialties. Firms of 400-999 lawyers took 21.0% of antitrust litigation hires, against 10.6% of merger control hires. Below that tier, antitrust litigation still has a real presence: firms of 150-399 lawyers took 14.0% of its hires and firms under 150 lawyers 7.6%.

The difference follows the work. Merger filings run through several regulators at once and reward a firm with offices in each of them, which pulls merger lawyers toward the largest platforms. A cartel case, a monopolization claim or a private damages action can be run by a trial team from one or two cities, and that team can sit inside a firm of a few hundred lawyers. For a mid-size firm, this makes antitrust litigation the realistic entry point into competition work: the candidates already move to firms of its size, and they do not need a global office network to follow.

In the Sartori & Partners lateral database, moves by antitrust litigators recorded under the antitrust and competition practice made up 33.2% of that practice's lateral moves. Set side by side, the two size profiles part in the middle. Firms of 400-999 lawyers took 21.0% of antitrust litigation hires against 17.0% for the practice, and firms of 150-399 lawyers 14.0% against 5.2%. The smallest firms run the other way: firms under 150 lawyers took 11.7% of practice hires, more than their 7.6% of antitrust litigation hires.

The shift is recent and runs against merger control. Over 3 years, firms of 1,000+ lawyers took 63.3% of antitrust litigation hires; the latest 12 months show 57.3%. In merger control the same tier went from 80.3% over 3 years to 85.2% in the latest 12 months. One specialty is opening up while the other closes in on the biggest platforms. A mid-size firm competing for an antitrust litigator is bidding in a market where its size is normal, not a handicap to explain away.

The top 10 hirers of antitrust litigators took 28.0% of the specialty's lateral hires in the 12 months to October 2026. In merger control the top 10 took 50.0%, so hiring there is far more concentrated. The antitrust practice as a whole sits at 25.8% and the whole market at 12.9%. Over 3 years the antitrust litigation top 10 took 25.5%, close to the latest figure. Antitrust litigators joined 88 different firms over the 12 months. Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis head the list in the 6-10 band of hires; the eight firms after them all sit in the 3-5 band.

A flat list of hirers changes the economics of a search. No single firm sets the price of an antitrust litigator, and no single firm can absorb the candidates who come free. Each rival on the list hired only a handful of antitrust litigators in a year. A firm that moves quickly, with a clear seat and a defined case load, can win a candidate against larger names, because those names are not hiring in volume here.

Partners were 41.8% of antitrust litigation lateral moves, against 32.4% across the antitrust practice and 35.9% in merger control. Across the whole market the partner share was 27.7%. Counsel were 15.2% of antitrust litigation moves against 11.8% for the practice, while associates were 43.0% against 55.0%. Few of these lawyers step up on arrival: 14.6% joined at a higher title than the one they left, near the practice's 13.3%. They also tend to stay in their city, with 16.0% relocating against 23.0% in merger control.

Partner weight and the spread across firm sizes go together. A partner with an active docket can carry a case to a firm of a few hundred lawyers, and the hiring firm gets the matter and the trial team with the lawyer. For a firm without a competition group, a lateral antitrust litigation partner in its own city is the shortest route to one.

New York took 30.4% of antitrust litigation lateral moves, an index of 206 against its share of the market. Washington, DC took 17.1%, an index of 305. For the antitrust practice the indexes are 110 in New York and 223 in Washington, so the pull of both cities is stronger in litigation. Merger control hiring centers on Brussels instead, at an index of 2,783.

Sartori & Partners counted 158 antitrust litigation lateral moves in the earlier settled 12 months and 152 in the latest, so hiring held flat (-3.8%). Partner arrivals went from 66 to 58, and that count held flat (-12.1%) as well. The antitrust practice held flat (+7.7%), while the whole lateral market rose 9.0%. The specialty is steady, not growing with the market: the size mix is moving while the volume holds.

A mid-size firm can build antitrust litigation strength by lateral hiring on its own terms. Firms of 400-999 lawyers took 21.0% of the specialty's hires, so candidates already accept platforms of that size. Do not read merger control the same way: with 85.2% of its hires going to firms of 1,000+ lawyers, a mid-size firm faces a much harder search there. Expect competition from many firms rather than a few, since the top 10 took only 28.0% of antitrust litigation hires. Plan the search as a partner search in New York or Washington, DC, where the index runs highest, and expect the candidate to stay in the city. With hiring flat, the supply of movers will not grow next year; speed and a clear seat decide who wins them.