Non-Compete Lawyer Hiring in 2026: Why Chicago Over-Indexes

Firms recruiting non-compete lawyers are searching a pool that sits in an unusual place. Sartori & Partners data show that Chicago took 8.8% of lateral hires in restrictive covenants and non-competes over the past 12 months, against 4.2% of all lateral moves: an index of 208, about twice the city's weight. New York, the largest destination in almost every practice, sits at an index of 83. The speciality recorded 227 lateral hires in the 12 months to October 2026, spread across 111 hiring firms.

This report sets that geography against employment and labor law as a whole, against trade secrets, the neighboring speciality where many of the same disputes end up, and against the full lateral market. Lawyers who list covenants as their own focus account for 14.7% of employment and labor moves. The pattern is consistent: covenant hiring is heavier in Chicago, thin in California, and more senior than the employment practice around it.

Chicago is not an outsized employment market. In Sartori & Partners figures it took 4.5% of employment and labor lateral moves, an index of 106, close to its weight in the market. For restrictive covenants alone the index climbs to 208. The tilt belongs to covenant work itself, not to a large Chicago employment bar.

The longer window says the same. Over 3 years Chicago took 7.4% of restrictive covenant hires, second only to New York, against 4.0% of the whole market and 4.3% of employment and labor law. The 12-month figure rests on 20 moves, a small base, and team moves made up only 2.6% of the speciality's hires, so the Chicago share is not one group lifting the total.

For a firm building a covenant bench, Chicago is the first market to search. It is also where the same candidates will hear from the most competing firms, so a Chicago mandate needs a fast first meeting and a clear offer.

New York remains the largest single destination for covenant hires, with 28 moves and 12.3% of the speciality. Yet the city takes 14.8% of all lateral moves, so covenant hiring there runs at an index of 83. Employment and labor law as a whole sits lower still in New York, at 68: covenant work is less under-weight there than the practice it belongs to.

New York is also the largest city that covenant lawyers leave, at 11.2% of hires over 3 years. Relocation is common enough to plan around but not to count on: 20.1% of covenant hires changed city, close to 20.6% in employment law.

A New York search will produce the longest list in absolute terms, but a thinner one than the city's size suggests. Widen it early to lawyers who handle covenant disputes inside a broader commercial litigation or employment practice, and to Chicago lawyers open to a move.

The sharpest contrast is on the West Coast. Los Angeles is the largest city for employment and labor hiring, with 11.0% of moves and an index of 218. Covenant work looks very different there: over 3 years Los Angeles took 4.4% of covenant hires, against 11.1% of employment and labor hires.

The reason is legal rather than commercial. California voids most employee non-compete agreements, so there is far less covenant enforcement to staff. Trade secrets runs the other way: in the same 12 months San Francisco took trade secrets hires at an index of 426 and Los Angeles at 182. Where a covenant cannot be enforced, protection of confidential information rests on trade secret claims, and lateral hiring follows the same split.

A California office that wants covenant capacity will usually import it from the Midwest or the Northeast, or grow it out of a trade secrets group. Expect a pure non-compete hire on the West Coast to be a rare find, and price the search for a relocation.

Covenant disputes move fast: a restraining order can be sought within days of a departure, and employers want a partner who has run those hearings. The level mix reflects it. Partners made up 42.7% of restrictive covenant hires in 12 months, against 22.4% in employment and labor law and 27.7% across the market, a gap of 20.3 points with the employment practice. Associates were 41.4% of covenant hires against 61.6% in employment law. Trade secrets is more senior again, with partners at 51.4%.

Partner hiring is steady rather than climbing: 95 partner moves in the latest settled 12 months against 75 in the previous 12 months, a gap that reads as flat on counts this small. The 12-month partner share sits above the 3-year figure of 37.2%. Step-ups are frequent too: 16.3% of covenant hires joined at a higher title than the one they left, against 13.5% in employment law and 12.9% in the market.

A firm adding covenant capacity is mostly competing for partners. Budget for partner economics, or look at senior counsel who handle these cases and offer the title as part of the move.

By the size of the joining firm, covenant hiring leans to the middle of the market. Firms of 400-999 lawyers took 34.8% of restrictive covenant hires, against 25.9% in employment and labor law and 23.4% in the whole market. Firms of 1,000+ lawyers took 47.1%, below the market's 53.6%. Firms under 150 lawyers took a rough 4.8%, against 11.5% in employment law.

Small firms are a bigger source of covenant lawyers than of lawyers in general. Over 3 years, 14.7% of covenant hires came from firms under 150 lawyers, against 11.4% of all lateral hires. Hiring is also concentrated: the top 10 hirers took 33.9% of covenant hires, against 30.0% in employment law and 12.9% across the market. Ogletree Deakins heads the list, followed by Jackson Lewis and Greenberg Traurig; bands count individual hires, not teams.

For a firm of 400-999 lawyers, the competition for a covenant partner is mostly its peers and a short list of national employment firms. Boutiques and small litigation shops are the richest source of candidates, and the one most firms underuse.

Demand is steady, not growing. Restrictive covenant hiring was flat year on year: 240 moves in the latest settled 12 months against 228 in the previous 12 months. Over the same windows employment and labor hiring rose 6.9%, from 1,438 to 1,537, and the whole market rose 9.0%. The covenant pool is not expanding with the rest of the market, so each hire comes out of a fixed bench.

Search Chicago first and New York second, and treat California as a market for trade secrets lawyers rather than covenant specialists. Plan for partner-level candidates: in the Sartori & Partners lateral database they are 42.7% of the people who move. Growing the bench internally is slow, with a median time to partner of 11.0 years in the speciality against 10.0 years in trade secrets. Firms are already trying: 166 covenant openings sat on law-firm career pages on the data date, a count of what was live that one day. Mine smaller firms for candidates, and move quickly in Chicago, where covenant demand runs furthest ahead of the city's size.