Law firm mergers: How far will US consolidation go?

Right now, in the US legal market, consolidation is king. Unprecedented numbers of law firms, including many of those ranked last year in the Chambers USA Guide, have now either combined or ceased operating in their previous form. What’s behind this trend, will it last – and what does it mean for the industry?

The year 2025 saw a big surge in industry M&A, already up by 21% in the first half of the year and continuing with further announcements throughout. One of the most headline-grabbing of the recent deals saw Chicago’s McDermott Will & Emery merge with New York-based Schulte Roth & Zabel. Now McDermott Will & Schulte, the firm is worth $2.8bn. 

That tie-up followed swiftly on the heels of London-headquartered Allen & Overy’s historic merger with Shearman & Sterling in 2024, creating a $3.5 billion transatlantic powerhouse. 

Stepping into 2026, the stage is set for even more law firm mergers. 

At least 16 deals have already been announced for completion this year, including Hogan Lovells’ record-breaking union with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. The new incarnation will be a $3.6 billion-revenue heavyweight. Meanwhile, the combination of Chicago-founded Winston & Strawn with Taylor Wessing’s UK business is expected to take place in May, bringing together 1,400 lawyers across 20 offices. 

While large firms led the way last year, it’s now expected that deal activity will increase across all segments, according to data reported by Reuters. As we’ll discuss later, this ongoing trend has implications for US law firms and their clients, both in terms of competition, and the size and distribution of mandates. 

Partner, Global Law Firm

Competition is fierce, particularly at the top. A few elite firms are increasingly dominating high-stakes work and representing the largest clients. Their size is a major reason for this pre-eminence, allowing them to take advantage of economies of scale, offer top-tier experts across related practice groups and make strategic investments in talent and technology globally. Smaller firms are understandably keen to get a bigger slice of the action by scaling up. 

Reach across different jurisdictions is another key advantage, particularly in a volatile economic environment. The ability to spread risk and access opportunities across more territories is another motivation for the growing number of US firms linking up with UK entities. 

A case in point: New York-based Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel’s acquisition by Herbert Smith Freehills creates a transatlantic giant with reach into Europe, the UK, Latin America and the Middle East. 

The redistribution of work also has a part to play. As the largest firms pursue the biggest deals and most profitable mandates, clients facing significant fee pressures are increasingly engaging mid-size, regional and boutique firms for matters which don’t justify a BigLaw fee structure. This work becomes more viable if economies of scale can be achieved. This partly helps to explain why the merger wave is spreading down into the mid-market, as firms pursue tie-ups to better take advantage of the more plentiful opportunities on offer.

While demand for legal services – particularly from major corporates – remains high, clients are adopting a differentiated approach. Matching matter complexity to rate bands is becoming standard practice. Instead of engaging a $2000/hr elite global firm on all matters, companies are awarding simpler or more local work to regional boutique practices. The lower price point is a major draw given the universal pressure to economise. 

A potential complication for firms in the middle market is increasing competition from boutique firms and alternative legal service providers (ALSPs), especially for more commoditised work. There is also evidence of squeezing from above from large internationals, who still sometimes compete in this space despite their preference for more lucrative mandates. Once again, this raises the incentive to explore merging as a route to growth, greater stability and competitive heft. 

General Counsel, Leading Petrochemical Company

Firms with no current desire to merge face the question of how to adapt to this ongoing consolidation. We’re seeing a big push on lateral hiring as premium firms look to strengthen their capabilities in key practice areas. There’s also a laser focus on profitability and rationalising down to the most profitable areas, including – aptly – negotiating client M&A deals. Law firms are managing risk by concentrating on strategic market segments where they can build defensible positions.

This consolidation wave is a significant market shift that looks set to continue throughout 2026 and beyond. Different segments of the legal services market are crystallising and becoming more distinct. Elite firms concentrate the most complex, high-margin work while boutiques offer deep expertise in niches or specific geographies, often at lower price points. The practices under most pressure sit between these segments in the mid-market. Many of these firms are now smartly re-evaluating their market positioning and – in some cases – considering mergers. 

That said, this restructuring is unlikely to significantly reduce client choice over the long term, as we tend to see these consolidation waves cyclically. For now, corporate clients may simply need to more closely review the shifting options on offer and allocate work to match. For law firm leaders, the question is nailing down where they can most credibly compete based on their capabilities, footprint and relationships. 

For insightful, impartial rankings of law departments and individual lawyers, look no further than the Chambers USA Guide. 

View rankings