The firm has no transactional practice and no regulatory advisory practice. Everything that follows on this page is a consequence of that decision.
Pakt Halloran & Reyes was formed in New York in 2010 by lawyers who had spent their careers trying cases inside full-service firms and had grown tired of the arithmetic. In a firm with a corporate practice, the most valuable client is rarely the one in the courtroom. Conflicts accumulate quietly, the list of parties the firm would prefer not to sue grows every year, and advice on the merits arrives shaped by relationships the client cannot see.
Removing the transactional practice removes that problem. It also removes a great deal of revenue, which is why few firms do it. The firms that have tend to be the ones a company calls when the outcome is not negotiable.
Teams are small and senior. The firm has 264 lawyers, of whom 68 are partners, which is roughly three associates to every partner. The median matter is run by five lawyers, two of whom are partners, and the lawyer who takes the first witness is the lawyer who read the first document. We do not build teams in order to fill them, and we do not rotate associates through a matter to spread training across the year.
One consequence is that the firm turns work away. Another is that partners carry fewer matters than they would elsewhere and are expected to know the record without being briefed on it.

The bench
Clients are told exactly who will run their matter before they instruct the firm, and meet that team at the first meeting. What is published here is the composition of the partnership, which is the part a counterparty is entitled to weigh.
The firm runs conflicts before any substantive conversation about a matter and declines instructions where a conflict cannot be cured. Because the firm acts only in disputes, the conflicts check is narrower than at a full-service firm and is usually completed within one business day.
The firm acts for claimants and for respondents in roughly equal measure. It does not maintain a defence-side or claimant-side identity, and it accepts instructions against companies in industries where it also acts, subject to the conflicts position.
The firm charges hourly, on fixed fees by phase, and on portfolio arrangements, and it works with third party funders and after-the-event insurers. Where local professional rules permit it, and where the firm believes in a claim, it will act on a contingent or partly contingent basis and share the risk of the outcome. Conditional and damages-based arrangements are structured to the regime of the forum, which differs materially between the jurisdictions in which the firm practises.
This is a matter of strategy as much as billing. An opponent who assumes the other side will run out of money is making an assumption about a cost structure that may not apply, and interlocutory attrition is a less attractive tactic against a firm that is paid for the result.
Amounts stated on this site are aggregates across related matters and represent the value of claims resolved, defended, or recovered, not sums received by any single client. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The firm's recognition record, including directory rankings by jurisdiction and year, is available to prospective clients on request.
The firm accepts a limited number of instructions each year and runs conflicts before any substantive discussion takes place. Please do not send confidential information until the firm has confirmed in writing that it is able to act.