The London Partner Shuffle

JMC’s Partner Specialist Insights: Why Record Moves Don’t Tell the Real Story

London has just concluded another record-breaking year for partner moves, with volumes climbing 21% higher than the previous year’s all-time high. On the surface, the narrative is one of unbridled momentum, a legal market defined by confidence, aggressive growth, and endless liquidity.

However, for those of us operating in partner recruitment daily, volume is often the least interesting metric. The headline data acts as a veil; the real story isn't found in who hired the most, but in who felt the losses most acutely, why those partners chose to exit, and what those departures reveal about the structural health of London platforms in 2026.

This year, the data tells a much more nuanced, and for some, uncomfortable story.

Why Attrition is a Relative Metric

The industry’s "attrition tables" currently place Paul Hastings, A&O Shearman, Kirkland & Ellis, and White & Case at the top of the list for exits. But framing these firms together is intellectually lazy. To understand the impact of a move, we must look past the raw digit and consider:

• The scale of the equity: A loss of 15 partners hits a 60-partner office differently than a 400-partner powerhouse.
• The "Internal vs. Lateral" factor: Are these career-built partners or previous lateral hires moving again?
• Revenue Concentration: Is the exit a lone wolf or a "rainmaking" hub?
• Intentionality: Is the exit a result of "trimming" or a structural failure?

Paul Hastings: A Case Study in Platform Trauma

No law firm illustrates the danger of raw data better than Paul Hastings. On paper, 19 partner exits in London is significant but not necessarily catastrophic for a global firm. However, when you contextualize that number, it represents roughly one-third of its London partnership.

This is not "churn." This is platform trauma. These were not late-career partners drifting toward retirement; these were "voting with their feet" moments from key figures:

• A high-performing three-partner private equity team to Goodwin.
• A tax duo, including a global second managing partner, to White & Case.
• Two real estate finance partners to Milbank to anchor their European expansion.

While the firm’s revenue is reportedly up, partner recruitment teaches us a hard truth: Partners don’t leave because of last year’s numbers; they leave because of next year’s belief. When senior, equity-heavy partners, particularly those made up internally, walk away, it signals a strategic misalignment that money alone cannot fix.

A&O Shearman: post-merger gravity is real

At A&O Shearman, the narrative has focused on post-merger rationalisation. While some pruning is expected, the calibre of exits suggests something deeper than simple "overlap." The loss of an 11-lawyer structured finance team to Latham & Watkins and a leading financial regulation partner to Sullivan & Cromwell indicates a struggle with what I call "Identity Shock."

Edwards Gibson estimates the firm would have preferred to retain roughly 80% of those who departed. This suggests that the exits weren't about redundancy, but rather:

1. Fundamental governance changes.
2. Altered power structures.
3. The fear of diluted influence within a massive, newly-merged entity.

Kirkland & White & Case: volume hides structure

Conversely, firms like Kirkland & Ellis and White & Case demonstrate how high volume can hide structural stability.

At Kirkland, 15 exits against 19 joins might look like a revolving door. However, their model, characterised by a large non-equity layer and aggressive internal promotions, means exits don’t carry the same existential weight. London remains one of their fastest-growing hubs, and their "churn" is often a feature of the model, not a bug.

Similarly, White & Case lost a notable infrastructure trio to Milbank but offset this with eight lateral hires and six promotions. This represents a deliberate repositioning toward private equity and tax, rather than a defensive loss of talent.

The "Quiet" Success Stories of 2026: Where the real growth is

While the market watches the exits, the smarter story is found in the firms building with quiet, surgical precision. Addleshaw Goddard, Baker McKenzie, and Simmons & Simmons all posted double-digit partner hires, signalling a long-term lateral commitment over short-term opportunism.

Perhaps the most interesting law firm to watch is Proskauer. By quietly growing its London partnership to approximately 60, it has built genuine credibility in private capital, secondaries, and leveraged finance. Their Band 1 rankings are the result of coherent hiring and partner alignment, rather than the "hype" of a massive recruitment drive.

Why Partners Really Leave

After a decade of advising partners, the takeaway for 2026 is clear: Partner mobility is no longer just about the draw. It is a referendum on:

• Clear leadership and direction.
• Confidence in the five-year trajectory.
• The feeling of being "central" versus "expendable."

The firms that should be most concerned aren’t the ones with the fewest hires, they are the ones failing to ask why their senior equity is walking out the door. In the London legal market, attrition is rarely accidental. It is the most honest feedback a firm will ever receive.

Related articles to Partner Recruitment:

The Real Reasons Lateral Partner Moves Succeed or Fail

How To Become a Partner In a Law Firm

5 Reasons Partners Look to Move Law Firms