The US life sciences legal market is moving out of a quieter period and into a more selective phase of growth. After a prolonged funding slowdown across biotech and early-stage pharma, deal activity is returning, regulatory pressure is increasing, and law firms are reassessing where they need bench strength.

For law firms, this is not translating into broad hiring. It is creating demand for very specific talent: transactional partners with a credible book of business, FDA regulatory specialists also with a book of business, which has changed in the last 12 months due to the number of lawyers leaving the agency without business. This means the bar for FDA Partners is higher than previously due to the oversaturation in the market of attorneys with no book. On the Associate side, firms are looking for senior associates who can run whole deals independently.

As Gabriel Roberts, Life Sciences and Healthcare specialist at H&P Executive Search, explains:

“Firms are not just hiring for the sake of hiring. They are being more strategic in their approach, and they want to know exactly how a hire supports future revenue, client demand, and long-term growth. Partners are looking for firms that have a true plan & vision for their Life Science/Healthcare group going forward.”

A market recovery led by deal activity

The clearest area of momentum is transactional work. Big pharma is under pressure to replenish pipelines ahead of major patent expiries, and biotech dealmaking is expected to accelerate through 2026. Reuters reported in May 2026 that biotech M&A is on pace for a significant year, driven by large drugmakers acquiring assets to strengthen future revenue streams.

That backdrop is shaping law firm hiring. According to Gabriel, demand is strongest for lawyers who understand the commercial and scientific complexity behind life sciences transactions, particularly M&A, licensing, financing, and strategic collaboration agreements.

“Transactional work is where a lot of firms are seeing revenue. They want lawyers who understand pharma, biotech, and medical devices, not generalists who have only touched the sector occasionally.”

It’s an important distinction in a market where top-tier lawyers can charge up to $2,500 per hour on large-cap transactions; firms are looking closely at whether a hire can support premium-rate work, deepen client relationships, and convert sector recovery into sustainable revenue.

Partner hiring is becoming more selective

For partners, the hiring market is active, but disciplined.

Firms are still interested in partners with substantial portable business, particularly where that business aligns with a strategic growth area. Gabriel noted that a partner with a $20 million book will as ever attract attention from many firms, but even strong books are being scrutinised more carefully than before. It is also important that the laterals practice aligns with the growth plans of the group even if they have a strong book of business.

The key questions are no longer just “how much business does this partner have?” but:

• Is the book growing or flat?
• Are the clients truly portable?
• Will this Partner bring a team with them or need support from the firms existing team?
• Can the client base support a gradual rate increase?
• Does the practice fit the firm’s longer-term platform strategy?

“Partners need to show that their book is consistent, sustainable, and still growing. Firms want to see where that business can go over the next few years, not just what it generated last year.”

Compensation is also under sharper review. Gabriel highlighted the common rule of thumb that partner compensation should broadly sit around one-third of book value. When that ratio is misaligned, particularly where a partner has a smaller book but is highly compensated, firms become far more cautious.

FDA regulatory capability is moving up the agenda

While transactional work is the clearest short-term growth area, regulatory demand is also increasing.

The strategic importance of FDA regulatory capability was reinforced earlier this year when  Paul Hastings hired Lynn Mehler and Phil Katz from Hogan Lovells to launch and lead its life sciences regulatory offering in Washington, DC. Mehler had previously co-led Hogan Lovells’ global life sciences and healthcare sector group, while Katz spent nearly two decades helping build its pharmaceuticals and biotechnology regulatory practice. The move was notable not only because of the seniority involved but because it reflected Paul Hastings’ broader push to build a full-service life sciences platform spanning regulatory, M&A, capital markets, antitrust, investigations, and IP.

The FDA’s March 2026 warning letters to 30 telehealth companies over misleading compounded GLP-1 marketing show how quickly regulatory scrutiny can create legal demand across life sciences, healthcare, digital health, and pharmacy-adjacent businesses.

Reuters also reported that the FDA warning letters formed part of a broader crackdown on misleading GLP-1 marketing, with companies required to respond with corrective action plans.

This is relevant for law firms because regulatory pressure rarely sits in isolation. It creates demand across FDA advice, advertising and promotion, investigations, litigation risk, commercial contracting, and IP strategy.

For firms, this reinforces the value of regulatory partners who can sit close to commercial strategy.

“Firms see that life sciences activity is picking up, and they want the regulatory bench in place for when more drugs are moving through approval and more clients need guidance.”

Life sciences IP remains a competitive battleground

Life sciences IP litigation is also staying visible. Recent Reuters coverage of CureVac’s patent infringement claim against Moderna over mRNA vaccine technology shows the continued value of patent litigation expertise in high-stakes biotech disputes.

At the same time, Bloomberg Law has reported a series of life sciences lateral hires, including McDermott Will & Schulte adding two health and life sciences partners, Covington hiring a Palo Alto life sciences transactions partner, and Goodwin recruiting a partner into its Boston life sciences group.

The pattern is clear: firms are investing in partners who bring either sector-specific deal experience, regulatory credibility, or specialist IP capability whilst also still bringing a substantial book of business. Yes, firms are strategically hiring in the space; however this does not mean they will take Partners with no book.

Senior Associates are becoming a pressure point

One of the most interesting talent dynamics is at associate level.

Gabriel identified particularly strong demand for fourth-to sixth-year associates, especially in transactional life sciences. These lawyers are senior enough to manage execution, but not yet so senior that they require a partner-level business case.

“A lot of partners do not have the bench strength they need. If they are spending too much time executing work themselves, they have less capacity for business development. This is where we are seeing a lot of unhappy Partners lateralling out of firms.”

This creates a practical growth issue for firms. Without the right senior associates, partners can struggle to service existing clients while also building new business.

However, this talent pool is difficult to move. Many associates at this level are either on a credible partnership trajectory, reluctant to risk goodwill built at their current firm, or considering in-house roles for better work-life balance, even where that may involve a significant pay cut.

For law firms, that means attraction is not only about compensation. It is also about visible partner sponsorship, quality of work, office presence, progression, and whether the associate can see a realistic path forward.

What this means for law firms

The life sciences opportunity is real, but firms will need to be precise.

The strongest hiring strategies will likely focus on:

• Transactional partners with credible, growing, and portable books;
• Life sciences licensing and M&A associates who can run deals;
• FDA regulatory partners who can support approvals, enforcement, and commercial risk that have their own book of business.
• IP litigation capability in biotech, pharma, and emerging technologies;
• Platform-building hires in Boston, Washington, DC, New York, and across California.

The firms that move fastest will not necessarily be those hiring the most. They will be those that understand where demand is forming, where their current bench is exposed, and which hires can translate market recovery into long-term client growth.

As Gabriel puts it:

“The market is not about volume. It is about whether the hire makes sense commercially, strategically, and structurally for the firm.”

For candidates, the message is equally clear. Generalist profiles are harder to position. Niche sector expertise, sustainable client relationships, rate alignment, and a clear growth story are becoming the differentiators.

For law firms, life sciences is entering a more competitive hiring cycle. But it is not a race for headcount. It is a race for capability.