Project Finance Lawyers: A Large-Firm Market

Most project finance lawyers who change firms end up at a very large one. Sartori & Partners data show 172 project finance lateral moves in the 12 months to October 2026, and firms of 1,000+ lawyers took 82.6% of them. Across all practices the same size class took 53.6%. The projects and infrastructure practice, where project finance sits, already runs above the market at 71.1%, and the speciality sits 11.5 points above its own practice. For a firm planning a project finance hire, the size of the likely buyer is close to settled before the search begins, and the plan should start from that fact.

The shortfall for every other size class is wide. Firms of 400-999 lawyers took 14.0% of project finance laterals, against 23.4% in the market as a whole. Firms of 150-399 lawyers took 2.9%, against 13.3%. Over 3 years, firms of 1,000+ lawyers took 75.8% of project finance moves, below the 12-month share, so the pull toward the largest platforms has not eased.

Project finance work tends to need lender and sponsor teams on several continents, large financing documents and a deep associate bench, which explains part of the pattern. A firm of 400-999 lawyers that wants a project finance lawyer is bidding in a market where its size class wins 14.0% of moves. It needs a case the largest platforms find harder to make: a defined sector seat, a visible role on a lender or sponsor relationship, or a shorter route to partnership.

The supply side shows the same tilt. In the Sartori & Partners lateral database, 76.2% of project finance lawyers who moved over 3 years had left a firm of 1,000+ lawyers. For the market as a whole the figure is 56.6%, and for the projects and infrastructure practice it is 69.4%. Firms of 400-999 lawyers were the previous firm for 14.8% of project finance movers, against 20.3% across the market.

This list says where the candidates sit today: inside large finance groups that staff multi-lender deals. A search therefore means persuading lawyers to leave platforms that already give them volume and international reach. The offer has to answer one question directly: what deal flow does the candidate keep, and what does the candidate gain in return?

Concentration runs by firm, not only by size class. The ten most active hirers took 36.8% of project finance laterals in 12 months, against 27.4% for the practice's ten most active hirers and 12.9% for the market's. That is 2.9 times the market's level. Over 3 years the speciality's ten most active hirers took 32.1%, so the 12-month figure is no one-off. In all, 69 firms hired at least one project finance lateral in the 12 months.

Latham & Watkins heads the 12-month list, followed by Norton Rose Fulbright. For a challenger, the practical point is that a strong candidate will usually weigh any offer against a counteroffer or a rival bid from a short, known list of firms, and the timetable should allow for that second round.

New York took 18.6% of project finance laterals in 12 months, an index of 126 against the market. London took 12.2%, an index of 132. The longer window adds Paris: over 3 years it took 7.7% of project finance moves, against 2.3% for all practices, and Houston took 4.4%, against 2.1%.

A firm recruiting for a US project finance seat should widen the map. London and Paris hold deep benches of international finance lawyers used to cross-border lender work, and Houston carries an energy-heavy pool that fits the deal mix described below.

The work behind the hiring is narrow. Sartori & Partners counted 919 dated project finance deals over 3 years and 374 in the latest 12 months. Clients in power and renewables were involved in 66.9% of them, against 18.4% for banks and financial institutions and 5.7% for infrastructure. Project and infrastructure finance was the deal type in 93.0% of the deals.

The firms that advise on the deals and the firms that hire the lawyers overlap. Clifford Chance, first by project finance deals advised over 3 years, ranks 4th among the 12-month hirers, and several other names sit on both lists. A candidate's value rests heavily on energy financings: experience on the lender or sponsor side of power and renewables projects is the credential most mandates will test, and a firm without that book should expect to buy it through the hire.

Volume is steady rather than growing. Project finance lateral hiring held flat (-7.4%), at 176 moves in the latest settled 12 months against 190 the year before, while the market rose 9.0%. Partner hiring in project finance held flat (+9.9%), with 78 partners against 71. In the projects and infrastructure practice, partner hiring held flat (+16.5%), from 182 to 212. The two are counted separately, so the comparison is one of direction only: the practice's partner market moved, and the speciality's did not.

The level mix leans senior. Partners made up 44.2% of project finance laterals in 12 months, against 38.6% in the practice and 27.7% in the market. Step-up moves are also more common: 17.4% of project finance laterals joined at a higher title, against 12.9% across the market. The partner pool is not growing, and a firm should expect rivals to use title as a lever for senior associates and counsel.

Build the target list from the finance groups of firms of 1,000+ lawyers, because that is where 76.2% of 3-year movers came from. Expect the competition to be a short list of very large firms that together took 36.8% of hires, and plan for a counteroffer round. Lead the pitch with power and renewables work, the client industry behind 66.9% of deals. Search London and Paris alongside New York. And with partner hiring flat at 78 against 71, treat a partner hire as a long search: the speciality's partner supply is not expanding, whatever the wider practice does.