Юридические фирмы Австралии ведут масштабную борьбу за партнеров: анализ перемещений за год

An analysis of lateral moves reported by Lawyers Weekly over the past 12 months has revealed which firms have been doing the poaching, which have been losing talent – and just how much damage one big team raid can do. September 09, 2026 • By Emma Musgrave Share this article on: Facebook X LinkedIn Link copied! Law firms have spent the past year pinching partners and, in some cases, entire teams from their rivals, but a look back at where that talent has been flowing shows some have been doing considerably more taking than giving. This content is available exclusively to Lawyers Weekly premium members. While partner movement is nothing unusual across Australia’s legal profession, the scale of some of the raids between 1 September 2025 and 31 August 2026 is hard to ignore. There have been teams of 10, 12, 14 and 15 moving between firms, multiple partners leaving competitors in one hit, and instances where firms have gone back to the same rival for more. To understand the impact, Lawyers Weekly reviewed more than 80 identifiable law-firm-to-law-firm lateral movements reported during the period to determine which firms have been doing the poaching, which ones have been picked apart, and where some of the biggest movements have occurred. Based on total reported headcount attached to the movements examined, Mills Oakley and Sparke Helmore each recorded a net gain of 24 people, while Hamilton Locke came out 17 ahead. Lander & Rogers followed with a net gain of 15, while McCabes came out 12 ahead. On the other end of the scale, Moray & Agnew recorded a net loss of 23 people across the movements captured, while K&L Gates sat 15 behind, Clayton Utz 13 behind, and Mallesons 12 behind. But how those numbers came about is even more telling. The biggest raids In some cases, a single team raid was enough to significantly alter the numbers. Just last month, Mills Oakley took a 15-person insurance team from Moray & Agnew, comprising partners Matt Huckerby, Holly Ulmer, and Lucy Munro, consultant Mark Brothers, a senior associate, three associates, three lawyers, a paralegal, and three legal assistants. That one raid accounted for more than half of Moray & Agnew’s reported losses across the movements examined, with the firm having already been dealt another sizeable blow just months earlier. In April, Sparke Helmore took a 12-person property team from Moray & Agnew, led by partner Fiona Nelson and special counsel Morgan Cherry. The group also included associates Marcia Casabianca and Lauren King, five paralegals, and three administrative staff. Together, those two moves alone saw 27 people leave Moray & Agnew for two rivals in the space of four months. Mills Oakley also made another considerable acquisition just one day after Sparke Helmore’s April raid, picking up an eight-person mining and resources team from boutique GRT Lawyers. Headed up by consultant Glenn Vassallo and partners Scott Standen and Rachel Hendrie, the group also included special counsel Alana Nisbet, senior associate Dale Copley, associate Meghan Bower, and lawyers Ashleigh Weeks and Bryce Hegarty. Across those two team acquisitions alone, Mills Oakley added 23 people. K&L Gates also found itself on the losing end of one of the year’s biggest raids. In May, Hamilton Locke recruited Lisa Ward from K&L Gates as a partner. Then, in July, Hamilton Locke went back in with much greater force, taking partners Betsy-Ann Howe, Matthew Cridland, Annalie Mitchelson, and Samuel Brown, together with another 10 team members. The firm wasn’t done there. On 28 August, construction specialist Justin O’Callaghan also left K&L Gates for Hamilton Locke. Across those three announcements, at least 16 people were reported as moving from K&L Gates to Hamilton Locke in just three months. Elsewhere, Lander & Rogers took a 10-person regulatory litigation team from Johnson Winter Slattery in June, comprising partners Tom Jarvis and Christopher Sones, one special counsel, three senior associates, three lawyers, and one legal assistant. DLA Piper took three tax partners and another five team members from Clayton Utz in October 2025, while Clifford Chance took Mallesons real estate partner Stuart Dixon-Smith and a team of five in July. Individually, each is a significant lateral hire. Collectively, however, the moves show just how quickly a firm’s position in the lateral market can change when partners don’t leave alone. For the firms doing the poaching, the appeal is fairly obvious. “Ultimately, firms are buying time,” Carlyle Kingswood Global managing partner APAC Steven Nunn told Lawyers Weekly. “Developing a partner and building a practice organically can take years. A successful lateral partner can potentially bring clients, revenue, a team, market credibility, and technical capability from day one.” For firms with a clear growth strategy, Nunn said a lateral hire can significantly accelerate the process. “It is not simply about acquiring a lawyer, it’s about acquiring an established piece of a practice that might otherwise take five or 10 years to build,” he said. When one departure becomes 10 While the attraction for the hiring firm may be obvious, what makes an entire team willing to walk out the door together? According to Nunn, when a whole team moves, “it is rarely just about money”. Legal teams can become closely connected both professionally and commercially, sharing clients, workflow, knowledge, and, importantly, trust. If the partner or partners at the centre of the group decide to move, Nunn said the impact can quickly flow through to everyone around them. “People start asking: Who will I work for? Where will the work come from? What happens to my career? Does the firm’s strategy still support what we do?” he said. “If the new firm can offer greater alignment across those areas, moving together can actually feel less risky than staying behind.” Burgess Paluch director Doron Paluch similarly said large team moves will often begin with just one or two key partners. If those partners decide their current firm is no longer working for them, taking their team to another can help ensure they are able to continue servicing – and retaining – the clients that made them attractive lateral targets in the first place. Strong relationships within those teams can also create a natural willingness to move together. Interestingly, Paluch said he has at times spoken with junior partners who were already aware of discontent within their team and referred them to more senior partners. For the hiring firm, he said, acquiring an established team can offer something that may otherwise take years to build. “If there’s a particular area in which a firm wants to grow, a lateral hire can be a much quicker way of getting there,” Paluch said. But if that’s what makes an established team so attractive, what makes some firms particularly vulnerable to losing one? When cracks start to show At Carlyle Kingswood Global, Nunn said his team sees partner dissatisfaction at firms generally coming back to one or more of four issues: the wrong role, the wrong culture, a misaligned strategy, or a misaligned management team. While remuneration can be a factor, he said it is often one of those underlying issues that creates the real motivation to move. “The biggest vulnerability is usually misalignment,” Nunn said. “A partner may feel their role has changed or no longer gives them the opportunity they want. The culture may have shifted. The firm’s strategy may be moving in a different direction. Or there may be growing frustration with leadership and management.” According to Nunn, there can be warning signs that a partner is on the cusp of leaving. They may become less engaged, requests for investment or resources may go unresolved, frustration around cross-referrals can increase, succession may become unclear, or questions may arise about whether the existing platform can still support their clients and ambitions. “Money often appears late in the conversation, but it is rarely the whole story,” Nunn said. “Good partners generally leave because something fundamental has become misaligned.” Paluch similarly pointed to leadership changes, questions around strategy, remuneration, and investment as factors that can make a firm more vulnerable to approaches. In other cases, however, a partner may simply have outgrown their existing firm, or their clients may want access to a larger, more full-service, more specialised or international firm. One departure on its own may mean very little. Several in quick succession can paint a different picture. “One departure is usually viewed as an individual decision. Several departures from the same practice or office can quickly become a narrative,” Nunn said. “That is when retention becomes much more difficult.” People rarely make career decisions in isolation, he added, and when respected partners begin leaving, others can start questioning their own position. “The danger is therefore not necessarily the first departure; it is the loss of confidence that can follow it,” Nunn said. Paluch agreed it is often the pattern, rather than simply the raw number of departures, that becomes significant. “If you lose several partners from the same practice or over a relatively short period, people take notice,” he said. “A bigger concern is what happens afterwards. Once people see colleagues leaving, it can make them question whether they should be leaving as well, and clients can start asking questions about continuity. “That’s when a few departures can become a much bigger issue.” Poacher or prey? Some of the clearest examples in the data involve firms appearing on both sides of the ledger within a matter of days. For example, on 25 March, Colin Biggers & Paisley announced it had taken insurance partner Jennifer Robbins from Clyde & Co, together with special counsel Mitchell Jensen, senior associate Tommy Evans, and solicitor Matthew Ellish. Five days later, Colin Biggers & Paisley was the one being raided. McCabes took principals Vijay Edwards, Anastasia Kolovos and Timothy Coghlan, together with their respective Brisbane and Melbourne teams – a total reported movement of 12 people. Then, in July, Colin Biggers & Paisley was back on the acquiring side, taking a six-person construction team, including two partners, from HopgoodGanim. A similar story played out at DLA Piper. In late October, the firm picked up eight people from Clayton Utz, including tax partners Angela Wood, Brendon Lamers, and Andy Bubb. Less than a week later, Barry Nilsson announced it had recruited six principals from DLA Piper’s insurance and health practice. Clayton Utz itself also spent the year simultaneously recruiting and being recruited from. The firm took Mark Malinas from Allens in September 2025, followed by Allens lawyers Bryn Hardcastle and Dave Filov in January, and projects partner Tristan Iredell in May. Rebecca Hoare also joined from Norton Rose Fulbright in August. At the same time, its rivals were taking some sizeable bites. In addition to DLA Piper’s eight-person tax raid, Baker McKenzie took IP litigation partner Dean Gerakiteys and two senior associates in January, while former national tax head Peter Feros left for Johnson Winter Slattery the following month. Other partner departures followed throughout the year, including Kym Fraser to Mills Oakley and, in August, JK Muckersie to Ashurst Perkins Coie, Scott Crabb to Squire Patton Boggs, and Marcus Davenport to HSF Kramer. Across the comparable movements captured, Clayton Utz had five reported people come in from rival firms and 18 go the other way. There is, in other words, no neat divide between the poachers and the poached. Going back for more There was another pattern among the movements examined: firms returning to competitors they had already successfully recruited from. The movements between Hamilton Locke and K&L Gates are perhaps the clearest example, with three separate announcements between May and August culminating in at least 16 people crossing from one firm to the other. Paluch said this can happen naturally, but it can also be deliberate. “If a firm has already hired successfully from a particular competitor, it knows there is likely to be a good fit and that the market opportunity is there,” he said. “One move can also make the next one easier, because people have seen that colleagues have made the move and it has worked.” Nunn described that first successful hire as a “proof of concept”. Once a partner has successfully moved from one firm to another, former colleagues can see whether that person has integrated, whether promises made during recruitment were delivered, and whether the move to the new firm is panning out well for them. That can considerably reduce the perceived risk of following them. “It can also reveal a deeper alignment issue,” Nunn said. “If several partners from one firm are attracted to another, it may indicate that the second firm’s culture, management style, or strategic direction is better aligned with what those partners are looking for. “At that point, recruitment can become less opportunistic and much more targeted.” A target on Mallesons? While Moray & Agnew recorded the biggest net loss across the movements examined, its numbers were heavily shaped by two major team raids. Mallesons presented a different pattern. Over the past year, multiple competitors successfully recruited from the firm across a range of practice areas. Baker McKenzie took Victoria Lanyon from the firm in October 2025, appointing her as a partner. MinterEllison then announced in November that private equity partner Lee Horan would join it in early 2026. In January, Gilbert + Tobin recruited long-serving M&A partner Brian Murphy, while White & Case took debt finance partner Will Stawell. White & Case then went back in March for M&A and private capital partner Alex Elser. Mills Oakley took John Boyagi in April, appointing the former Mallesons special counsel as a partner. Then came the biggest loss. In July, Clifford Chance took real estate partner Stuart Dixon-Smith and a team of five from Mallesons. Taken together, 12 people were attached to the Mallesons departures captured in Lawyers Weekly’s analysis. The movements span different firms and practice areas, and, on their own, don’t establish why any of those individuals decided to leave. Nor does the analysis purport to capture every lateral hire Mallesons made during the period. But the pattern is notable: multiple competitors successfully recruiting from the same firm, including one going back for more. As both recruiters observed, a successful first move can make subsequent approaches easier. Where are firms hunting? The firms losing talent tell one part of the story. The practices they’re losing it from tell another. Construction and infrastructure featured repeatedly throughout the period. Hamilton Locke’s hires from K&L Gates included significant construction expertise, while Colin Biggers & Paisley took a six-person construction team from HopgoodGanim. Holding Redlich recruited four construction, infrastructure, and projects lawyers from HWLE Lawyers, while HFW launched in Brisbane with a five-person construction team from boutique CDI Lawyers. Insurance was another particularly active battleground. Mills Oakley’s 15-person Moray & Agnew acquisition was insurance-focused, Barry Nilsson took six principals from DLA Piper’s insurance and health practice, Colin Biggers & Paisley added insurance talent from Clyde & Co, and Sparke Helmore made several insurance hires – including teams from HWL Ebsworth and GSG Legal. Disputes and regulatory litigation also featured prominently, as did projects and energy. Paluch said the common thread was both a strong underlying demand and the highly specialised nature of those practices. “Firms can’t necessarily build that expertise overnight, so hiring people who already have the experience and client relationships is attractive,” he said. “There’s also currently plenty of major infrastructure, energy and construction work in the market, alongside continued demand for disputes and insurance expertise.” Nunn similarly pointed to major projects, the energy transition, and continued infrastructure investment as drivers of demand. Those projects generate legal work across their entire life cycle – from financing and planning to construction and regulation and, inevitably, in some cases, disputes. Disputes also tends to remain resilient when economic conditions become more difficult, he said, while insurance generates a substantial and relatively consistent volume of work. For firms, bringing in an established practitioner with relationships and sector knowledge can therefore provide access to “an entire stream of work rather than simply adding another individual lawyer”, Nunn said. And as the past 12 months show, sometimes that practitioner can bring an entire functioning team with them. Who came out on top? On total reported headcount attached to the comparable law-firm-to-law-firm movements examined by Lawyers Weekly, Mills Oakley and Sparke Helmore each recorded a net gain of 24 people. Mills Oakley had 25 reported people arrive from identifiable rival firms and one leave, while Sparke Helmore likewise gained 25 and lost one. Hamilton Locke followed with a net gain of 17, having gained 18 and lost one, while Lander & Rogers came out 15 ahead and McCabes 12 ahead. At the other end of the scale, Moray & Agnew recorded the largest net loss at 23 people, having gained five and lost 28. K&L Gates followed at 15 behind, Clayton Utz at 13 behind, and Mallesons at 12 behind. There is, however, an important distinction within those numbers: a reported “team” does not necessarily mean a team entirely made up of lawyers. For example, Sparke Helmore’s 12-person Moray & Agnew acquisition included five paralegals and three administrative staff, while Mills Oakley’s 15-person Moray & Agnew team included a paralegal and three legal assistants. For that reason, Lawyers Weekly separately examined identifiable lawyer headcount. On that measure, Mills Oakley recorded a net gain of 20 confirmed legal practitioners, while Lander & Rogers and Sparke Helmore were each 14 ahead. Moray & Agnew recorded a net loss of 11 identifiable legal practitioners, while Clayton Utz was 12 behind. The figures also require a broader caveat. The analysis captures law-firm-to-law-firm movements identifiable in Lawyers Weekly reporting between 1 September 2025 and 31 August 2026. It is not a census of every lawyer who changed firms in Australia during that period. The numbers should therefore be read as a snapshot of reported lateral activity rather than a complete measure of firm-wide recruitment or attrition. Even with those qualifications, however, they show how quickly talent can shift between competitors – and how much difference one well-targeted raid can make. Neither recruiter expects the competition to disappear anytime soon. Nunn expects lateral partner and team movement to remain “very active” over the next 12 months, although firms are likely to become increasingly selective about who they pursue. “The attraction of acquiring established revenue and capability is simply too strong, particularly in strategically important practice areas,” he said. At the same time, firms are becoming more sophisticated about lateral hiring. “The question is increasingly moving away from, ‘Can we recruit this partner?’ towards, ‘Should we recruit this partner, and will their practice actually be more successful on our platform?’” Nunn said. Partners, too, are looking beyond remuneration and considering whether a prospective firm offers the right role, culture, strategy, and management team. Paluch similarly expects the lateral market to remain fairly active, particularly for established partners and teams in areas where firms have identified a clear growth opportunity. “I’d expect strategic poaching to remain a feature of the market rather than to disappear,” he said. And for firms tempted to simply maintain the status quo, Paluch had a warning. “Firms need to remain proactive as well as opportunistic. Or they will inevitably and quickly become the hunted,” he said. Want to see more stories from trusted news sources? Make Lawyers Weekly a preferred news source on Google. Click here to add Lawyers Weekly as a preferred news source. Tags News Moves appointments BigLaw mills oakley tags K&L gates tags Clayton utz lander & rogers tags Moray & Agnew Sparke Helmore McCabes premium poaching Premium Content Lawyers Weekly Premium Mallesons