The London disputes recruitment market has always fascinated me because it rarely follows the same patterns as the transactional world. Hiring can remain quiet for months before accelerating almost overnight.
To get a clearer picture of what's happening across the market in 2026, I sat down with my colleague Andrew François, Senior Consultant at Sonder Consultants. Andrew specialises exclusively in London's disputes recruitment and spends his days speaking with hiring partners, associates and leading law firms across the City.
In our conversation, I asked Andrew about the current state of the market, the practice areas seeing the strongest demand, the biggest misconceptions lawyers have about disputes recruitment, what firms are really looking for in 2026, and the advice he'd give to anyone considering their next move.
Q&A with Andrew François
Q. How would you describe the current state of London's disputes market?
Andrew François:
Disputes definitely comes in waves - it's not uncommon to see little to no activity for a few months, and then a surge in demand. There's almost a merry-go-round to it. Most teams are stacked and the work is steady, but when a mid-level or senior associate leaves, it can start a domino effect that lasts months (we recently saw one run from July to November 2025, and then again with a smaller resurgence in January–February this year).
During economic downturns, disputes isn't necessarily as volatile as the transactional practice groups, which is why in periods where we've seen mass lay-offs, disputes has tended to remain relatively unscathed by comparison.
Generally speaking, firms don't hire en masse. It's a practice area that needs to be robust and reactive, with associates on hand for the busy periods, so teams are kept tight. Another factor is the uptick in partner moves across the City. A lot of the time partners can't bring associates with them from their previous firm, and usually, once they've got their feet under the desk, they'll have made the hires they want within six to twelve months.
Over the last few years, commercial litigation has remained one of the most robust of all the disputes sectors. That doesn't mean there's been a significant boost, but when you compare it to the trends in arbitration and white collar & investigations, both of those have gone through significantly prolonged periods of market inactivity, which by and large can't be said for commercial litigation.
From a recruiter's perspective, London stays top because that's where the work is. English law and the English courts are still the default for cross-border disputes, and London remains the world's number one arbitration seat. On top of that, no other centre matches the ecosystem: the magic circle, the US firms, a specialist Bar, a respected judiciary, expert witnesses and litigation funders, all in one place and one time zone.
For disputes lawyers, that means resilient, high-quality work and more optionality than anywhere else. It's much of the reason the allure for overseas candidates is so strong - from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong.
Q. Which areas of disputes are seeing the strongest demand from law firms right now?
Andrew François:
At the moment, we're seeing a resurgence of white collar and investigations hiring across the board. It's been brewing for some time, as the sector had been quiet over the previous 12 months. A few reasons for this:
- Like everything, it comes round in cycles, and we're now seeing increased demand off the back of a pick-up in work.
- It's partly a by-product of the lack of hiring over the last few years.
- We're on that merry-go-round again, where associates need to be replaced like for like.
If I had to order the practices from most to least busy right now:
- Regulatory investigations
- White-collar and enforcement work
- Competition litigation
- Commercial litigation
- International arbitration
Competition disputes hiring is up largely because there's simply far more litigation to staff. The UK now allows large group "opt-out" claims, where huge numbers of consumers or businesses can be swept into a single case against one company (essentially class actions) - and these are massive, document-heavy matters that run for years and need real numbers of lawyers.
On the lateral side, there have also been a fair few partner moves in this space, so a lot of the activity stems from that as well.
Q. Have you noticed any changes in the types of disputes lawyers firms are looking to hire?
Andrew François:
Greater specialisation. Disputes hiring has become far more targeted over the last few years. Because roles are often reactive and created to replace someone who's left a team, firms are usually looking for like-for-like experience. Hiring partners naturally want someone who has done similar work, and ideally someone who can hit the ground running.
That said, the strategy can sometimes go the other way. Rather than hiring at exactly the same level, firms may look slightly more junior. It gives associates more time to develop within the team, reduces the pressure around promotion, and can make more sense commercially over the long term.
Sector experience also depends on seniority. Between 0–3 PQE, there's generally less emphasis on specialisation. I've had partners hiring into financial services litigation tell me that, at that level, "a contract dispute is a contract dispute." What matters far more is genuine hands-on experience. Partners want lawyers who've been actively involved throughout the lifecycle of a matter, not simply staffed on large cases with limited responsibility.
That's why candidates from smaller teams often perform so well. They tend to have had more ownership, more responsibility and broader exposure. In today's market, that's difficult to hide because almost every interview process includes a technical exercise. Firms want to see that you can apply your experience in practice, not just talk about the matters listed on your CV.
In quieter areas, such as international arbitration, firms can be even more selective. Hiring is often driven by replacement rather than growth, which means firms can afford to wait for candidates with exactly the right experience, whether that's investor-state or commercial arbitration. In a slower market, that puts the hiring firm firmly in the driving seat.
Q. What are the biggest misconceptions lawyers have about the London disputes market?
Andrew François:
The first is assuming disputes hiring falls off a cliff during an economic downturn. It doesn't.
Transactional practices are heavily dependent on deal flow, so when borrowing slows and transactions dry up, hiring often follows. Disputes works differently. A dispute can arise at any point, and a lot of the work actually follows deals rather than happening alongside them. If you've had an exceptionally active M&A market, it's not unusual to see disputes arising from those transactions a year or two later.
You also tend to see investigations and regulatory work remain active during more challenging economic periods. Businesses face greater scrutiny, regulators become more active, and firms need lawyers to help navigate those issues. That's why disputes has historically been a much steadier recruitment market than many people expect.
The second misconception is that all disputes practices are the same. A lot of associates, particularly at US firms, do a mix of litigation and arbitration and assume they'll be able to move comfortably into either discipline elsewhere. Sometimes that's true, but firms are becoming much more specialist. If they're hiring someone for a pure arbitration role, for example, they're usually looking for someone with exactly that background.
The final misconception is thinking the biggest name or highest salary automatically makes for the best move. I see associates focus on prestige without really looking at the work they'll be doing or the trajectory of the team. Some firms have invested heavily in disputes over the last few years, while others haven't. Understanding the quality of the work, where the team is heading and how the move fits your longer-term ambitions is usually far more important than the name on the door.
Q. Which law firms have been particularly active in disputes hiring over the last 12 months?
Andrew François:
UK firms generally have the most robust disputes groups. Most US firms in London built their model off the back of transactional practice areas, but over time they've invested more in their disputes teams, hiring major partners from the largest UK firms, which has shifted the balance. US firms traditionally weren't always able to offer the best work, but after years of taking partners from competing firms, some have managed to bridge that gap.
Currently, investigations work and mandates have made a huge upward shift, across both US and UK firms. That comes off the back of the market being particularly quiet beforehand, and when you combine that with associates moving around, it puts previously settled groups in a position where they need to hire.
Sanctions is seeing an extremely large uptick. Because of the political climate, the need has arisen for genuine experts in that field, and it spans investigations and arbitration alike, as sanctions demand sits at both the international and domestic level.
International arbitration has been on the other side of this, though it's due to swing back soon, as all hiring cycles do. It hasn't been the best market for arbitration lawyers lately - work seems stable but not overly busy on the whole. And even where firms are busy, that isn't necessarily cause to hire: I recently worked with a firm that was overwhelmingly busy and on the cusp of recruiting, but they ended up drawing on help from their US offices instead and didn't make a hire. That's something firms can do to minimise recruitment spend — short-term, yes, but still effective through busy periods.
Q. What separates the lawyers who attract the most interest from firms?
Andrew François:
Strong academics still matter. Where a lawyer studied and the grades they achieved can be the difference between a partner giving you a difficult technical interview or a more casual conversation. We've seen first-hand that some partners are only really looking for associates from certain firms and certain universities, and it's only then that you're generally considered. As elitist as it sounds, that's the level the best teams operate at. There's an assumed understanding when an associate comes from a certain environment, and that certainly plays out in the interview process.
That said, the single biggest differentiator among the associates who actually land the roles is technical excellence. I can point to multiple instances where an associate impressed enormously and was, frankly, well liked by most of the partners they met, but when it came down to the technical exercise, the firm went with the highest performer on the test. It's not just disputes; law firms at large are adopting technical exercises, written or verbal, so if a candidate can't showcase their knowledge, understanding and application to the level a partner expects, that rarely results in an offer.
The advice I'd give candidates is to revise every matter they've put on their CV, because partners usually ask questions around them. Also have a strong understanding of what the team does - hopefully that's in line with your own practice, but if not, make sure your understanding is at the level of the associates doing it day to day.
Cross-border experience matters too, particularly for US firms, though it isn't the biggest hindrance if the candidate is otherwise at the level the partners want. Client contact can count as well - in some instances an associate's work with a particular client will be of specific interest. And beyond all of that, partners are looking for commercial awareness and the ability to take genuine ownership of your work.
Q. How important is international arbitration experience in today's market?
Andrew François:
What firms really value is exposure to both litigation and arbitration. This has traditionally been sought after by a lot of US firms, given the way their work splits, but increasingly it's also desired by traditional UK firms. It gives a firm the option to use an associate's capabilities across both arbitration and litigation, which is especially useful when one side isn't particularly busy — as is the case with arbitration at the moment.
Q. What advice would you give a disputes lawyer considering a move in 2026?
Andrew François:
I'd probably say one thing above everything else: don't make a move based on salary alone.
Compensation matters, of course it does, but it shouldn't be the only reason you leave. The lawyers who tend to make the best career moves are the ones looking at the bigger picture - the quality of the work, the platform, the people they'll be working with, the progression opportunities and where that team is heading over the next few years.
Timing matters as well. The right opportunity at the wrong time isn't always the right move, but equally, waiting for the "perfect" opportunity can sometimes mean missing a very good one. That's where speaking to a recruiter can really help. We have a broader view of the market and can tell you how a particular opportunity compares to what we've seen over the last six to twelve months, and whether it's likely to come around again.
I always encourage candidates to think five years ahead rather than five months ahead. Ask yourself whether this move genuinely gets you closer to where you want to be. The strongest career decisions are usually strategic, not reactive.
Q. Looking ahead, what do you think the London disputes market will look like over the next few years?
Andrew François:
I don't see London's position changing any time soon. It's still one of the world's leading centres for complex disputes. The quality of the courts, the strength of English law, the legal infrastructure and the international client base all continue to attract some of the biggest and most complex matters globally.
From a recruitment perspective, I think investigations, regulatory disputes, sanctions, competition disputes and other specialist disputes practices are all going to remain strong areas over the next few years. Those are the teams where I'd expect to see the most consistent hiring activity.
AI will undoubtedly make firms more efficient, particularly around document review and case management, but I don't think it's going to reduce demand for high-quality disputes lawyers any time soon. The skills that really matter in disputes - judgement, strategy, advocacy and managing clients - are still very much human skills.
What I do think will continue to change is how firms hire. They're becoming far more targeted than they were a few years ago. Rather than hiring broadly, they're looking for lawyers with very specific experience, sector expertise and a profile that aligns with their long-term plans.
For lawyers, that means it's becoming increasingly important to build a genuine specialism, gain meaningful hands-on experience and be able to clearly explain the value you bring. Technical ability is still the foundation, but firms are also looking for commercial awareness, leadership potential and lawyers who can build strong relationships with clients over the long term.
.png)
