Republished with permission, originally appeared in Westlaw Today on September 3rd, 2026.
Law firm Holland & Hart LLP recently announced the addition of an entire patent team from Ashurst Perkins Coie, the international law firm previously known as Perkins Coie LLP.
Holland & Hart's absorbing of a full legal team with existing internal working relationships intact was not an isolated event. This type of group-lateral hiring, often called a "practice-group lift-out," is happening nationwide, representing a prominent trend in the legal industry, but the reasons are not immediately clear.
Westlaw Today asked Holland & Hart partner Lindsay Silber to shed some light on the trend and explain what people can expect going forward.
Westlaw Today: Some say importing fully formed teams, complete with partners, junior lawyers and support staff, is becoming the norm. What advantages does this type of move have over, for instance, promoting lawyers from within and hiring individual support staff?
Silber: The two aren't in competition — we do both, and they reinforce each other. Developing our own lawyers remains the foundation of our firm, and welcoming an established team is a way to accelerate growth where our clients are asking for more depth. Our goal is clear: continue to build a national destination for complex intellectual property matters is a strategic priority for the firm. We've long had a deep and sophisticated IP practice. What this group adds is a trial-ready, high-stakes patent litigation bench as well as sophisticated patent portfolio strategy, counseling and transactional capabilities that complement that foundation.
When a team arrives with its internal working relationships, workflows and trial teams already intact, it can serve clients at full strength from day one. For our clients, that means immediate access to greater depth. For our existing lawyers, it means new colleagues, new capabilities and new opportunities to collaborate on sophisticated matters.
WT: There appear to be many advantages to such moves, but what are the risks, especially if clients refuse to move with the lawyers?
Silber: Any lateral move — whether one lawyer or a group — starts with the understanding that clients always choose their counsel; that decision belongs to them alone. The way to manage that risk is to focus on the fundamentals: recruit excellent lawyers whose practices genuinely fit the firm's strategy and platform, so the move makes sense for their clients as well. This team also brings a well-diversified practice serving a broad roster of technology clients, so the practice isn't dependent on any single relationship. The larger risk in these moves is often cultural fit, and that's where we feel especially fortunate here — more on that below.
WT: Is a "lift-out" more common with intellectual property practices? Are patent practices, for instance, easier to move?
Silber: Patent practices do travel well, and there are structural reasons for that. Patent litigation and strategy work is inherently national — these matters play out in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, federal district courts and at the International Trade Commission, regardless of where the lawyers sit. Clients hire patent counsel for their technical depth and judgment, not their ZIP code. And because patent teams are built around specialized technical expertise and long-standing collaboration, the team itself is the asset. That's why these practices tend to move as a unit, whether that's a group of six, as in our case, or something much larger.
WT: How does absorbing a fully formed team affect firm culture, compensation and the morale of existing staff?
Silber: In our case, we expect the transition to be seamless — and that's not just optimism. Several of the team's former Perkins Coie colleagues are already thriving here: IP and patent litigation partner Elizabeth Manno joined us earlier this year, commercial litigation partner Daniel Graham joined last year and a large team of trademark attorneys came aboard in 2022. There are also deep preexisting personal and professional relationships between the incoming lawyers and our current practitioners, including Molly Kocialski, who joined our IP bench recently from the USPTO. In many ways, this feels less like absorbing a new team and more like getting the gang back together. When growth is strategic and the cultural fit is right, existing lawyers and business professionals see it for what it is: an investment in the platform everyone shares, which creates opportunity rather than anxiety.
WT: Can a lift-out impact associate development or the traditional partnership track pipeline?
Silber: We see it as a net positive for associate development. A group arrival brings more than partners — this team includes an of counsel and an associate. It expands the range of high-stakes matters our associates can work on and the roster of accomplished lawyers who can mentor them. Growth in client demand is what creates advancement opportunities, and adding capability that attracts sophisticated work widens the pipeline rather than narrowing it. The key is intentional integration: staffing new matters across the combined group so relationships and skills develop from the start, which is exactly our plan.
WT: Can we expect to see lift-outs become the norm? If so, are there any particularly positive or negative outcomes we should expect?
Silber: Group moves will remain a significant part of how firms grow, because they work when done thoughtfully. Clients get continuity and immediate depth, lawyers keep the teams they've built, and firms add proven capability aligned with client demand. We'd expect the best outcomes where firms treat these moves as long-term investments in people and culture rather than short-term revenue plays. The moves that struggle are the ones driven by headlines rather than fit. Our approach — growing where our clients need us, with lawyers who already know and trust our people — has served us well, and we expect that to be the model that endures.