Partner intelligence · Lateral moves
Lateral Due Diligence: What Partners Investigate Before Moving
A lateral partner does not ask about compensation first. In our interviews with 2,600+ partners, the opening questions probe firm strategy, platform infrastructure, international footprint, and process legitimacy. Compensation comes later — and only if the prior four tests are passed. This page maps the exact questions partners ask, the order they ask them, and what the answers reveal about a firm's real commitment to a hire.
The same word, ‘diligence.’ Four different threshold tests.
Pick which question a partner is really asking. The share of the conversation moves with it — and compensation is not at the top.
Firm strategy, growth intent & hire mandate — the single largest cluster, and almost always the first substantive question a serious candidate asks (228 of 1,207 classified questions). Sartori Global proprietary dataset
The four primary non-financial clusters account for more than 40% of all classified questions — and they come before money. A partner who leads with compensation is the exception, not the rule. Every share is mapped below.
What 2,600+ partner conversations reveal.
These figures are banded aggregates from Sartori Global's proprietary interview corpus. No individual, firm, or client is attributable.
- 1,424
- Partner due-diligence questions classified in our interview corpus. The four primary clusters — strategy, platform, footprint, and process — account for more than 40% of all classified questions.
- Sartori Global proprietary dataset, N ~2,667
- 19%
- Share of classified questions probing firm strategy and hire mandate — the single largest question cluster, appearing before compensation in most serious lateral conversations.
- Sartori Global proprietary dataset
- 35%
- Of partner conversations in our dataset included discussion of a team move. Corporate/M&A (206 conversations) and disputes (128) account for the highest volumes.
- Sartori Global proprietary dataset
- 49%
- Of partner conversations included a detailed compensation discussion — meaning more than half opened and closed on non-financial questions alone.
- Sartori Global proprietary dataset
A lateral partner does not ask about compensation first.
Which questions do partners actually ask — and how often?
Across 1,207 classified partner questions in our interview corpus, twelve recurring archetypes emerge. The four primary clusters that this article addresses in depth are highlighted. Percentages are of the classified pool.
In our interviews with 2,600+ partners, the question corpus does not distribute randomly. It clusters around recurring concerns in a consistent order. Strategy and mandate legitimacy dominate the opening. Platform and process follow. Compensation, equity structure, and book portability typically arrive only after the candidate has resolved the threshold questions. What reads below is the full archetype map — the four primary clusters covered in depth in subsequent sections, and the eight supporting clusters that complete the picture.
- FirstStrategy & mandateIs this a funded build or an opportunistic acquisition?
- ThenPlatform & deal flowBuild from scratch, or inherit infrastructure and referral flow?
- ThenFootprint & processIntegrated network and aligned internal sponsors — or optics and a fractured mandate?
- Only thenCompensationThe financial package — reached in fewer than half of conversations.
| Question archetype | % of classified | Top practices | Core concern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firm Strategy, Growth Intent & Hire Mandate | 18.9% | Disputes 17%, Tech/Data 12%, Corporate 12%, Projects 7% | Is this a funded build or an opportunistic acquisition? |
| Compensation Package & Guarantee | 13.2% | Corporate 19%, Disputes 18%, IP 8%, Real Estate 6% | Total financial package, guarantee length, market benchmarking |
| Team Size, Headcount & Office Composition | 9.6% | Disputes 13%, Corporate 13%, Banking & Finance 13%, Tech 9% | Associate depth, equity vs counsel ratio, solo-partner risk |
| Platform, Infrastructure & Internal Deal Flow | 9.1% | Disputes 16%, Capital Markets 10%, Corporate 10%, Banking 8% | Build-from-scratch vs inherited infrastructure and referral flow |
| Process Legitimacy & Mandate Qualification | 8.1% | Corporate 19%, Disputes 15%, Banking 13%, IP 9% | Are all internal stakeholders genuinely aligned behind this hire? |
| Equity vs Income Partnership & Profit Model | 7.8% | Disputes 14%, Corporate 12%, Tech 7%, Restructuring 6% | Lockstep vs eat-what-you-kill, equity bands, black-box transparency |
| Portable Book of Business & Client Retention | 7.5% | Corporate 22%, Disputes 12%, IP 10%, Real Estate 9% | Portability threshold, ramp-up tolerance, client follow risk |
| Career Trajectory, Partnership Track & Advancement | 6.7% | Disputes 25%, Corporate 17%, Other 9%, Projects 6% | Equity promotion timeline, criteria clarity, co-chair opportunity |
| International Footprint & Cross-Border Capability | 6.2% | Disputes 16%, IP 13%, Tech 13%, Corporate 12% | Genuine network integration vs map-coverage optics |
| Billing Rates & Client Fee Sensitivity | 5.1% | Corporate 16%, Disputes 13%, Banking 10%, Projects 8% | Rate card compatibility, grandfathering, fee pressure from institutional clients |
| Origination Credit & Cross-Referral Economics | 5.0% | Disputes 22%, Capital Markets 12%, Tech 10%, Banking 8% | Credit allocation when work crosses practice or office boundaries |
| Conflicts, Client Panel Eligibility & Overlap | 2.8% | Disputes 24%, IP 15%, Corporate 12%, Capital Markets 9% | Existing firm client conflicts, panel access, policyholder vs insurer tension |
The table above reflects our interview pipeline, which skews toward partner-level candidates at international, US Am Law, and Magic Circle firms. It is not a representative sample of all laterals in all markets. Readers should apply judgment: a disputes partner in a concentrated regulatory market will weigh conflicts questions more heavily than the aggregate suggests; a capital markets partner in a cross-border hub will weight footprint questions more heavily still.
Is this a genuine mandate or a market trawl?
Firm strategy and hire mandate questions account for nearly one in five classified partner questions — 18.9% of 1,207 classified. They are almost always the first substantive questions a serious candidate asks.
Why do partners probe mandate legitimacy before everything else?
In our interviews with 2,600+ partners, the question that separates a genuinely motivated candidate from a passive listener is almost always a variant of: is this approach backed by a real plan? The underlying concern is rational. A partner who moves to rebuild a practice that a firm has neglected for years faces a specific risk: the firm’s cultural muscle memory still treats that practice as peripheral, the budget commitment evaporates after year one, and the lateral finds themselves isolated rather than resourced. The exemplar questions from our corpus illustrate the precision of this investigation.
| The question asked | What it is really testing |
|---|---|
| "Is the primary driver for this hire to build something new, to backfill a departure, or simply to acquire additional revenue?" | Whether the firm's intent is genuinely constructive or a revenue patch — the strategic intent behind the mandate |
| "Why has rebuilding this practice become a priority now, after years of the practice declining at the firm?" | Whether urgency is genuine strategic conviction or a response to a competitive scare — and whether the underlying neglect will recur |
| "What guarantees does the firm offer that this expansion initiative will succeed where a previous lateral hire failed?" | Whether the firm has conducted a post-mortem on failure and changed the conditions, or is repeating the same approach |
| "Is this an opportunistic approach triggered by my availability, or is there a funded, board-approved strategic plan behind it?" | The hardest version of the mandate question: it forces a binary answer and exposes whether the recruiter is fishing without a live mandate |
The top practices for this cluster — disputes (17%), technology/data (12%), corporate (12%), and projects/energy (7%) — share a common feature: these are areas where a single partner hire without the right firm support cannot realistically sustain a sophisticated client base. A disputes partner at a US firm whose clients require parallel running of complex matters needs the firm’s full infrastructure; a technology partner whose clients are scaling fast needs a committed AI and data practice around them. In both cases, strategic commitment is a precondition, not a nice-to-have.
Across our interview corpus, this archetype appears most often in conversations with partners who have already been through one failed lateral — either a move where promised resources did not materialise, or a firm that lost appetite for the practice after the hire was made. The question is not paranoid due diligence. It is pattern recognition from experience.
The question is not paranoid due diligence. It is pattern recognition from experience.
What does the firm actually provide — beyond the office and the brand?
Platform, infrastructure, and internal deal-flow questions account for 9.1% of classified questions. They probe what a firm provides on day one — not what it promises to build.
What do partners mean when they ask about 'platform'?
The word platform is used loosely in lateral conversations. In our interview corpus, it has a precise meaning: the combination of existing associate bench depth, cross-practice referral economics, and institutional client feed that determines whether a lateral partner can hit the ground running or must build from scratch. In 9.1% of classified due-diligence questions, partners probe all three with specificity.
The team-size dimension is closely related. In our dataset, 9.6% of classified questions — the third largest cluster — are factual headcount questions: how many equity partners versus counsel in the practice, what is the associate-to-partner ratio, will the incoming partner be the sole presence in the office or join an established bench. These questions are not idle curiosity. A franchise team with fourteen partners to three associates — a configuration that appeared in our corpus more than once — is structurally unable to execute the work that a large-book lateral brings. The partner doing this arithmetic before accepting a meeting is being professionally responsible.
| The question asked | What it is really testing |
|---|---|
| "Is there existing structure and infrastructure to support the practice, or would I be building from scratch?" | The build-versus-inherit split — and whether the compensation guarantee accounts for the ramp-up period correctly |
| "What is the balance between servicing existing firm clients versus generating entirely new business from my own network?" | Whether the firm is offering a supported landing or asking the lateral to fund the firm's own cross-sell aspirations with their own book |
| "Are team resources dedicated to this practice area or shared across the wider office?" | Whether execution capacity is real or theoretical — shared associates are frequently unavailable when the lateral's work spikes |
| "Is the role intended to support an existing partner's growth, or to bring in a new standalone practice?" | The seniority and autonomy question: arriving as a service partner to an existing rainmaker vs arriving as an originating partner with independent standing |
Across our interview corpus, the platform question connects directly to the book-of-business picture. In our data, USD-denominated corporate and M&A books carried a median around $2.2m, with the range running from under $200k to $50m. A partner at the upper end of that range cannot credibly service the work through a platform with insufficient associate depth — the client relationship is at risk the moment execution falls short. The due-diligence question is, in effect, a capacity stress-test run before any commitment is made.
Is the firm's international network genuinely integrated or optics?
International footprint questions appear in 6.2% of classified partner questions and cluster heavily in cross-border practices. The core test is integration, not map coverage.
How do partners test whether international capability is real?
In our interviews with 2,600+ partners, the geographic platform gap — a current firm’s inability to support cross-border origination — is one of the top recurring motivations for moving at all. It follows naturally that footprint due diligence is a priority in the next conversation. A partner whose clients generate work across multiple jurisdictions has already been burned by a firm that claims a network but routes everything through local counsel.
Map-coverage opticsGenuine integration
- Offices on paperNamed in the brochure; no deal flow captured locally
- Best-friends / local counselCross-border work routed out to others, adding a margin
- Firm offices that capture the workThe firm’s own qualified lawyers staff each relevant jurisdiction
The question cluster appears with the highest frequency in disputes (16%), IP (13%), technology/data (13%), and corporate (12%) — precisely the practices where client mandates routinely cross borders. A disputes partner managing international arbitration proceedings needs offices that can staff locally, not a referral network that adds a margin. A technology partner advising on cross-border data transfers needs the firm’s own qualified lawyers in each relevant jurisdiction, not a best-friends arrangement.
| The question asked | What it is really testing |
|---|---|
| "Is the firm's international network genuinely integrated, or do cross-border matters still go through local counsel rather than firm offices?" | Whether cross-border capability is real execution depth or a referral directory — the distinction that determines whether major clients will stay |
| "How does the firm market international capabilities without a broad office network — specifically in emerging Gulf markets?" | Whether the firm is candid about coverage gaps or inflates its network to close the lateral. Honesty here predicts reliability later |
| "What is the firm's jurisdictional focus for work flowing from US clients into European and Asian markets?" | The specific routing of cross-border deal flow — which offices actually capture the work versus which are named in the brochure |
| "Can the firm support a Middle East practice expansion given its current geographic footprint and office coverage?" | A capacity question in a specific growth market — testing whether the firm's ambition matches its current infrastructure or is aspirational |
The portability data in our corpus reinforces why footprint matters so much. Partners at international and global firms in our dataset — 227 book-assessed conversations — showed USD books with a median around $2.1m and GBP books with a median around £1.85m. Partial portability was the most common assessment (92 of 227), meaning that a significant portion of the book is relationship-dependent and will only follow if the receiving platform can credibly service the client’s cross-border needs. If the platform cannot, the portability assessment deteriorates — and the financial case for the move collapses with it.
Are the right people inside the firm actually behind this hire?
Process legitimacy questions account for 8.1% of classified questions. They are a portability proxy: a fractured internal sponsor predicts a failed integration even when financial terms close.
Why does internal alignment matter more than a headline financial offer?
In our interview corpus, process legitimacy and mandate qualification questions cluster disproportionately in corporate (19%), disputes (15%), banking and finance (13%), and IP (9%) — practices where the lateral’s success depends on cross-office collaboration and multi-practice support. The question is simple and devastating: are the relevant internal stakeholders genuinely bought into this hire, or is there resistance that the outward-facing recruiter has not disclosed?
- Managing partnerFunds and authorises the search
- Practice group headCollaborator — or a competitive threat to their own book
- London committeeOne geography’s sign-off
- New York partnershipThe other geography’s sign-off — cross-office alignment test
All four aligned → integration. One fractured → the lateral is administratively supported but operationally isolated.
Across 2,600+ partner conversations, the experienced candidates who ask this question have typically seen what happens when the answer is no. A managing partner who is enthusiastic, a practice group head who is ambivalent, and a partnership committee that was not consulted produces a first year in which the lateral is administratively supported but operationally isolated — no internal referrals, no cross-selling, no collaborative integration. The financial guarantee expires. The lateral is then assessed on a book they had no platform support to develop. The exit follows.
| The question asked | What it is really testing |
|---|---|
| "Is this a specific, funded search or a general market exploration on behalf of the firm?" | Whether the firm has committed budget to this hire or is running a market map to calibrate interest before deciding |
| "Are the relevant internal stakeholders — including the existing lead partner — fully bought into this hire, or is there internal resistance?" | Whether the existing practice group head sees the lateral as a collaborator or a competitive threat to their own client relationships and origination credit |
| "Why would the firm have reached out directly if there is genuine strategic interest — is there an actual mandate behind this approach?" | A challenge question testing whether the outreach is backed by a live brief or is speculative prospecting dressed as a targeted approach |
| "Is the London practice group on the same page as the New York partnership committee on this lateral hire?" | The cross-office alignment test — detecting whether the offer is backed by the full partnership or only by one geography or faction |
The bilateral nature of this due diligence is worth noting. Across our interview corpus, the motivation archetype of firm disruption and strategic drift — mergers, leadership changes, mass departures — appeared in 5.7% of classified motivations. Partners who are leaving because their current firm lost its strategic direction are particularly attuned to process signals at the target. They have already seen what fractured internal alignment looks like from the inside, and they will not accept a process that replicates those dynamics.
A fractured internal sponsor predicts a failed integration even when financial terms close.
What do partner books actually look like — and how portable are they?
Book-of-business figures from our interview corpus are within-currency band medians. Currencies are not cross-converted. These are banded ranges from de-identified conversations — no individual or firm is attributable.
How do book sizes and portability vary across practice areas?
Across our interview corpus, book-of-business figures show wide practice-area variation — and portability assessments diverge just as sharply. A corporate partner and a disputes partner may carry similar USD book medians around $2m–$2.2m, but the proportion of that book that will follow to a new platform is structurally different. The table below shows the key practice areas where we have sufficient data for non-suppressed reporting, at the level of banded medians.
| Practice area | Portability assessed (n) | USD book median (band) | Highly portable | Partially portable | Low portability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private Equity | 34 | ~$5m | 26% | 24% | 12% |
| Capital Markets | 72 | ~$2.75m | 24% | 49% | 7% |
| Banking & Finance | 119 | ~$2.5m | 34% | 31% | 12% |
| Restructuring & Insolvency | 54 | ~$2.6m | 31% | 44% | 9% |
| Disputes/Litigation | 198 | ~$2.15m | 23% | 33% | 23% |
| Corporate/M&A | 244 | ~$2.15m | 25% | 32% | 14% |
| IP | 101 | ~$2m | 22% | 35% | 22% |
| Technology/Data | 54 | ~$2m | 37% | 50% | 7% |
| Employment | 21 | ~$1.2m | 33% | 33% | 24% |
Two patterns stand out. First, private equity books carry the highest USD medians in our corpus — around $5m — and a markedly higher proportion of highly portable assessments (26% of the assessed conversations in this practice, among partners whose book portability we assessed) than disputes, where institutional clients and panel constraints push low-portability assessments to 23% of assessed conversations. Second, portability percentages do not add to 100% because a proportion of conversations were not assessed for portability at all — reflecting conversations that closed before the book question was reached.
Where does the book question disappear entirely?
For Magic Circle partners in our dataset — 70 book-assessed conversations — USD books carried a median around $5m and GBP books (13 conversations) around £3m. Partially portable was the most common assessment (30 of 70), with highly portable and institutional assessments roughly equal (14 vs 5). The institutional category — where clients follow the firm, not the partner — is a structurally different lateral proposition: the book question becomes irrelevant, and the conversation pivots entirely to platform, culture, and role design.
Employment — lowest USD median
21 portability-assessed conversations; the lowest USD book median in our corpus.
Sartori Global proprietary datasetHow do billing rates complicate the due-diligence conversation?
Billing rate and client fee-sensitivity questions account for 5.1% of classified partner questions — a lower share than strategy or platform, but one that can close a conversation instantly when the answer is wrong.
Why does rate compatibility matter in a lateral due-diligence conversation?
In our interview corpus, 85 partner conversations included a billing-rate-inflation objection — the concern that the target firm’s standard rate card will disfigure a book built at lower rate levels. The exemplar: a rate increase of 10%–15% on joining creates an unsustainable transition for clients accustomed to current pricing. One variant that appeared repeatedly described clients built at a rate of $850–$900 who would not follow at a target firm’s standard rates of $1,100 and above.
- A book priced lowClients accustomed to the partner’s current pricing
- The standard rate card appliesThe target firm’s pricing is materially higher
- Procurement, not the GC, decidesThe client’s procurement function resolves the increase
- The client does not followLost to a competitor charging what the client is used to paying
The rate-compatibility question is therefore a specific form of portability due diligence — not about whether clients like the partner, but whether the partner can bring those clients to a higher-cost platform without losing them to a competitor who charges what the client is used to paying. The 5.1% question cluster tests whether the firm offers grandfathering on existing client relationships, what flexibility exists on standard rate exceptions, and whether cross-office pricing disparities can be managed for international client bases.
This archetype connects directly to the portability-by-practice data above. Disputes/litigation accounts for 13% of rate-sensitivity questions — consistent with a practice where institutional panel relationships are price-negotiated at the panel level, not the partner level. A partner moving from a Silver Circle firm to an elite US platform may carry a strong client relationship but face a rate incompatibility that the client’s procurement function, not the GC, resolves. For an examination of the rate economics from the firm’s side, see our analysis of disclosed associate billing rates and what the sticker-versus-collected gap means for partner economics.
What do these questions tell a firm about a candidate's seriousness?
A candidate who asks none of these questions is not a safer hire — they are an uninformed one. The depth of due diligence is a leading indicator of integration success.
The candidate runs a structured question set before saying yes — the same analysis a firm would apply before acquiring a practice group, applied from the other side of the table.
What should a partner work through before committing?
Across 2,600+ partner conversations, the partners who commit to a move successfully tend to have worked through a structured question set before they say yes. The questions are not adversarial — they are the same analysis a firm would apply before acquiring a practice group, applied instead by the practice group head considering the acquisition from the other side. A candidate who does not investigate the mandate, the platform, the internal alignment, and the international capability is either a passive listener with low commitment, or has not yet reached the point in the conversation where these questions are relevant.
The compensation number — discussed in 49% of conversations in our corpus — matters, but it does not by itself differentiate a candidate who will succeed from one who will not. For candidates thinking through a move, the archetype map above is a planning tool: it identifies the questions that will be asked, in approximately the order they will arise, and the practices where each cluster is most acute.
Lateral hiring is underwriting, not recruiting romance. The firm should read the quality of a candidate's questions as a leading indicator of integration success.
What should a firm read from the quality of a partner's due-diligence questions?
The firms in our pipeline that consistently attract and retain serious laterals are the ones that can answer strategy, platform, and process questions clearly — because they have thought about those questions themselves before the conversation begins. The compensation number matters, but it does not by itself differentiate a candidate who will succeed from one who will not.
For firms constructing a lateral pitch, the archetype map above is a planning tool. Firms that can answer the mandate legitimacy question with specificity, the platform question with evidence, and the internal alignment question with named advocates rather than general assurances will close more conversations than those that cannot — regardless of headline compensation.
For a complementary view on what drives partners to engage with a lateral conversation at all, see our analysis of lateral partner hiring and the motivation archetypes that determine who will take a call. For the book-of-business context across markets, our methodology page describes how Sartori Global’s interview data is collected, classified, and applied. To discuss a specific mandate or candidate situation, the contact page reaches the research desk directly.
A candidate who asks none of these questions is not a safer hire — they are an uninformed one.
Where these figures come from.
Every figure on this page is a banded, de-identified aggregate from Sartori Global's proprietary interview corpus of 2,600+ partner-level conversations. The dataset itself is confidential; the references below set out the methodology and the companion analyses that contextualise the numbers.
Methodology & companion analyses
5 references- Sartori Global — Methodology: how the interview corpus is built ↗
- Sartori Global — Lateral Partner Hiring: a strategic guide ↗
- Sartori Global — Associate Rates, Leaked: what court filings reveal ↗
- Sartori Global — What Partners Really Make at the Top Am Law Firms ↗
- Sartori Global — Submit your CV to the research desk ↗
Archetype percentages are calculated over the classified question pool (1,207 classified of 1,424 total). Book-of-business figures are within-currency band medians and are not cross-converted. This is one recruitment firm’s interview pipeline, which skews toward partner-level candidates at international, US Am Law, and Magic Circle firms; survivorship bias applies. For how the corpus is collected and classified, see our methodology page.
Keep reading.
Lateral Partner Hiring
The motivation archetypes, book expectations, and platform dynamics that determine which partners will move and which will not — drawn from the same interview corpus.
Read the lateral hiring guideAssociate Rates Leaked: What Court Filings Reveal
The billing-rate economics that sit behind the partner compensation conversation — what court filings show about rate inflation and the sticker-versus-collected gap.
Read the billing-rates analysisWhat Partners Really Make at the Top Am Law Firms
Partner compensation at the US elite — the financial benchmarks that inform the guarantee and equity conversations a lateral candidate will ask.
Read partner pay at the Am Law top 50Submit Your CV
Senior lawyers considering a lateral move can submit their profile directly to the Sartori Global research desk for a confidential conversation.
Submit your profileOur Methodology
How Sartori Global's proprietary interview corpus is collected, classified, and applied — including how archetypes are built and what the dataset does and does not represent.
Read our methodologyAll Insights
Market intelligence, salary data, and recruiting analysis for law firms and senior lawyers across all practices and geographies.
Back to all insightsLateral due diligence: common questions
What is the single most common question partners ask before agreeing to a lateral move?
In our interviews with 2,600+ partners, the most common question cluster — accounting for roughly one in five classified questions — centres on firm strategy, growth intent, and hire mandate. Partners want to know whether they are being recruited into a funded, board-approved build or whether the approach is opportunistic. The defining question takes many forms: 'Is this a genuine mandate or a general market trawl?', 'Why now after years of the practice declining?', and 'What guarantees exist that this initiative will succeed where a previous lateral failed?' Before answering any financial question, a serious candidate runs this threshold test first.
How do partners assess whether a firm's platform can actually support their practice?
Across our interview corpus, platform and infrastructure questions account for roughly 9% of all classified due-diligence questions. Partners probe three things: the associate bench depth available from day one, the balance between servicing existing firm clients versus generating entirely new business, and whether team resources are dedicated or shared across the wider office. A common formulation: 'Is there existing infrastructure or am I building from scratch?' A disputes partner requiring four to six senior associates to run complex parallel matters will not accept a platform with fourteen partners to three associates — that arithmetic shows up clearly in our data, particularly in capital markets, corporate, and infrastructure practices.
Why do so many partners ask about process legitimacy before discussing compensation?
Because the process question is a portability proxy. In our dataset, roughly 8% of classified questions fall under process legitimacy and mandate qualification — probing whether the relevant practice group head, the London committee, and the New York partnership are genuinely aligned. A fractured internal sponsor means a failed integration even if financial terms close. The exemplar questions capture it precisely: 'Are the existing lead partner and the partnership committee on the same page?' and 'Is the London practice on the same page as New York?' These questions appear disproportionately in corporate and banking mandates where cross-office sign-off is most complex.
How does a firm's international footprint affect whether a partner will move?
International footprint questions appear in roughly 6% of classified questions and cluster heavily in disputes, IP, technology, and cross-border corporate practices. The core test is network integration — not whether the firm has offices on paper, but whether cross-border matters flow through firm offices or through local counsel. A partner whose clients generate work across the Middle East, Asia, and Europe will ask whether the firm's network is genuinely integrated or whether it provides map-coverage optics without actual deal flow. In our interview corpus, geographic platform gap (inability of the current firm to support cross-border origination) is one of the top three partner motivations for moving in the first place — making footprint due diligence a natural priority.
Do book-of-business expectations differ significantly across practice areas?
Yes, materially. In our dataset, USD-denominated book medians at the partner level range from around $1.2m in employment and $2m in IP practices to $5m+ in private equity and Magic Circle contexts. Corporate/M&A partners assessed by our team carried USD books with a median around $2.2m, while private equity partners showed a USD median around $5m. Portability mix also diverges sharply: roughly 32% of corporate partners are assessed as partially portable and 25% highly portable, while disputes partners split more evenly — roughly 23% highly portable, 23% low portability, reflecting the institutional client concentration that makes litigation books inherently harder to move.
The read behind the data
Running a lateral search or considering a move? Get the unsentimental version.
We map the questions partners will ask, the books they carry, and the platform gaps that close conversations before they begin. Tell us the practice and market and we will give you the real picture.