Litigation in Canada is harder and more expensive than it used to be. However, the best firms have turned that into a competitive advantage by offering senior-level attention without the overhead of a full-service practice.

“The cost of running these cases has increased substantially, particularly over the past six years, and I attribute a lot of it to COVID,” says Richard M. Bogoroch, founder and managing partner of Bogoroch & Associates in Toronto. As an outside voice on litigation trends rather than one of this year’s ranked firms, he points to higher expert witness and disbursement costs as a major driver. 

Canadian Lawyer’s eighth bi-annual Top Litigation Law Boutiques survey shows one pattern standing out above all others. The firms that win once tend to keep winning, but that’s not to suggest there isn’t dynamism in the area, with first-time winners being crowned.

Six of this year’s 15 recognized firms, Lenczner Slaght LLP, Lax O’Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, Stockwoods LLP, Woods LLP, and Hunter Litigation Chambers, have appeared in the rankings since the survey’s earliest cycles in 2012, a level of staying power in a competitive, high-turnover legal market that illustrates what boutique litigation practice requires to endure.

The litigation law boutique model asks something specific of a firm: deliver senior-level advocacy without the overhead and structural layers of a large full-service practice, a dynamic Canadian Lawyer has tracked among the country’s litigation law boutiques for years.

The 2026 survey drew 473 votes across 57 nominated firms between April and June 2026, with lawyers, in-house counsel, and clients asked to rank up to 10 firms in order of preference. To be considered, a firm needed the majority of its business to come from litigation work, a threshold that keeps the comparison focused on genuine litigation specialists rather than full-service firms with a litigation department attached.

The strength behind this year’s Top Litigation Law Boutiques list echoes elsewhere in CL’s own coverage. At the 2026 Canadian Law Awards, held in Toronto in May, Lenczner Slaght won Litigation & Dispute Resolution Boutique Law Firm of the Year outright, with Adair Goldblatt Bieber LLP, Lax O’Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb, Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP, and Stockwoods LLP all named Excellence Awardees in the same category.

Stockwoods partner Brian Gover also took home the Lifetime Achievement in the Legal Profession award for private practice. Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein was recognized as an Excellence Awardee for Pro Bono Initiative of the Year for its work on Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al., and Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes also acted as counsel on Canadian Tobacco’s restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the year’s winning Insolvency & Restructuring Deal of the Year.

The overlap between the two recognitions, a peer-voted boutique ranking and a judged industry awards program, points to the same handful of firms earning sustained respect across very different evaluation processes.

For this report, respondents repeatedly point to bench strength as the differentiator, describing winning firms in terms usually reserved for much larger practices.

That combination of senior lawyers genuinely present on files rather than delegating down appears to be what sustains a boutique’s reputation across multiple survey cycles. Several respondents also pointed to a willingness to take matters to trial rather than settle as a mark of confidence that clients notice. “Their commitment to excellence, ability to confront challenging problems, and take any matter, no matter how complex, to trial is a model for the profession,” says one respondent.

Bogoroch comments that trial experience is not optional for lawyers handling complex litigation. “It’s difficult, in my opinion, to handle medical malpractice cases without that trial experience. Trial shapes you, it forms you. You learn lessons from every trial that you try,” he says.

On the growing role of artificial intelligence in litigation practice, Bogoroch is measured. “AI is extremely important, but it’s not a substitute for doing your own work,” he says. “It’s a tool to save time, to do processes more efficiently. It’s not a substitute for lawyers’ role in advocacy. It cannot yet be an advocate.” He adds that firms need clear internal policies before using AI tools with client information, given the privacy risks involved.

Not every 2026 winner has a decade-long track record. This year’s list includes a newly combined entity still establishing its identity in the market, alongside a firm that has practised in Toronto for more than three decades but is earning CL’s recognition in this area for the first time. 

Both point to the same conclusion: consistent recognition is earned continuously, not inherited from firm tenure alone.

Lenczner Slaght LLP is recognized among Eastern Canada’s top litigation law boutiques for 2026, the firm’s eighth appearance since 2012. Peer feedback this cycle was the most extensive of any firm surveyed, with respondents repeatedly calling the firm the benchmark for litigation law boutiques in Canada. 

“Lenczner Slaght is routinely held up as the number one litigation firm in Canada,” says one respondent. Another notes the firm’s “tremendous depth of legal talent” and its consistent presence on complex, high-profile mandates. 

Lax O’Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP has been recognized in every report since 2012. Survey respondents point to the firm’s depth across seniority levels and its willingness to take the most complex disputes to trial. 

“It is a powerhouse of litigation superstars. The quality and calibre of the litigation team is second to none,” says one. Another describes the firm as “an elite firm with an expertise in handling high-stakes litigation”. 

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP has been recognized since the first report in 2012. Respondents cite the firm’s breadth across appellate, administrative, and commercial litigation, along with its pro bono commitment. 

“Track record, strong appellate and administrative law, commercial litigation practices, pro bono work, creative counsel who work collegially with each other and opposing counsel,” says a respondent. 
 

“We view the practice of law as a privilege, and with that privilege comes the responsibility to contribute to the law by serving the needs of people who need advice and guidance, regardless of ability to pay”
Emily LawrencePaliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP

Emily Lawrence, managing partner at Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein in Toronto, spoke with CL about what has sustained that recognition.

A: One, we have a real steadfast commitment to exceptional client service. Our collegiality is really something that sets us apart. We work together very well as a growing team, and we’re known at the bar for our civility and our ability to collaborate with opposing counsel and co-counsel, which helps with a very strong referral network. 

And then we have this very deep bench of talent. We started as 18 lawyers in 2001, and we’ve worked very hard to find talented, bright students and associates, provide them with opportunities, and bring them up into the partnership. We’re celebrating 25 years this year, and we have really talented people at basically every age and stage.

A: We have experts in all of those practice areas, which sets us apart from boutiques that are practice area-based. We take on work that’s interesting and work that we think matters, and lawyers here can build practices they really hone and develop based on their own interests. 

We think that’s how good advocates are made; appearing before different kinds of decision-makers really does enhance one’s advocacy. We also have a number of institutional clients, universities, professional regulators, unions, whose challenges generate work in a lot of areas, and then we have a thriving commercial litigation practice as well, and both streams lead to appellate advocacy.

A: Our commitment to pro bono is across the firm, from the most senior lawyers to our students. Some of it is very flashy. We act for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association on many cases at the appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, but we also act pro bono on small consumer matters, and everything in between. 

Providing pro bono legal services has been a guiding force since the founding of the firm. Our founding partners and their mentors before then had such a strong commitment to pro bono. We view the practice of law as a privilege, and with that privilege comes the responsibility to contribute to the law by serving the needs of people who need advice and guidance, regardless of ability to pay. 

We know that pro bono work sharpens our skills, deepens our expertise, and makes us feel good to give back to the community using those skills.

Stockwoods LLP has appeared in the rankings since 2012, with peers this time around highlighting the firm’s securities litigation and regulatory practice alongside its class-action advocacy. 

“Stockwoods is simply the best. Unbelievably smart, great with clients, strategic, sees the big picture and litigates to win,” says one respondent. 
 

“In the modern world, developing specialties is often the way people have gone, and we do have subject matter specialists, but I think we’re closer to the old model: master advocacy, evidence, and procedure, and then apply that to several different areas”
Paul Le VayStockwoods LLP

Paul Le Vay, partner at Stockwoods in Toronto, spoke with CL about what has sustained that recognition.

A: Securities litigation and regulatory work are two distinct but related concepts. Securities litigation involves regulatory work, representing public market participants or registrants in front of the Ontario Securities Commission, the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization, and other bodies, involving breaches of Ontario securities law. 

It also involves civil litigation, investor claims, intra-industry claims, and securities class actions. How that work has evolved is really a function of the regulatory choices made by those entities, we saw it go from transgressions by junior mining companies, to cannabis, and now a lot of cryptocurrency and AI-related work. 

That regulatory work also tends to be more resistant to swings in the economic cycle than something like commercial litigation. Regulators keep investigating and prosecuting compliance issues regardless of whether the economy is strong, which makes it a comparatively steady part of the practice. 

On the class-action side, there’s been a bit less volume in Ontario lately. Amendments to the Class Proceedings Act made Ontario less appealing to plaintiffs’ lawyers, so there’s higher volume now in British Columbia and Quebec, where the regime is perceived to be friendlier to the plaintiff’s side. 

Our regulatory practice is quite broad and involves public inquiry work and dealing with regulatory organizations. A group of my colleagues is doing a lot of work right now for an accounting regulator, investigating large accounting firms.

A: If we’re acting for an institution in an inquest or a large public inquiry, we do a fairly intensive deep dive with the client at the front end into what their objectives are, what they want the recommendations to say, where the sensitive areas are. 

You start by thinking about what you want the outcome to be at the end and then work to build the case and the evidence toward that. A couple of years ago, my partner Nader Hasan defended Umar Zameer, who was acquitted of all charges, including first-degree murder, in the death of a Toronto police officer, in an incident where Zameer believed he was being attacked by what was in fact an undercover officer approaching his car. 

The focus was always on the defence while acknowledging the tragedy throughout. We don’t celebrate an acquittal; we recognize justice was done. You always have to look at how you’re going to get the best outcome, bearing in mind that your audience isn’t just your client. It’s the adjudicator, the court, the tribunal, or the jury deciding the case, and how your approach will be perceived publicly afterward.

A: It’s really the flexibility of the firm to master complexity in various areas of the law with the teams we’re able to build. We have people who’ve done securities class actions, competition law class actions, and product liability class actions. 

It’s the ability to use our advocacy skills and our knowledge of how the Class Proceedings Act regime works and quickly master the subject matter with the help of the client or experts. 

In the modern world, developing specialties is often the way people have gone, and we do have subject matter specialists, but I think we’re closer to the old model: master advocacy, evidence, and procedure, and then apply that to several different areas. What we’re expert in is convincing adjudicators about something and learning what we need to convince them about on a case-by-case basis. 

Adair Goldblatt Bieber LLP has been an ever-present since 2018–19. Peer feedback in this report points to the firm’s lean staffing model and its stated priority on work-life balance alongside growth. 

“This firm, unlike any other, considers work-life balance, a healthy office culture, and delivering excellent work to be more important than growth and billable hours,” says one respondent. 
 

“We think it’s really important as a litigation law boutique to give people the opportunity to get into court and take on substantive pieces of a file as early in their career as possible. The only way to learn this job is to get out and do it”
Jordan GoldblattAdair Goldblatt Bieber LLP

Jordan Goldblatt, managing partner at Adair Goldblatt Bieber in Toronto, spoke with CL about what has changed at the firm since it began winning recognition.

A: What’s stayed the same is that since we started the firm, we’ve always tried to have a culture where we took the work extremely seriously but tried not to take ourselves so seriously and gave space for people to find the way they wanted to practise. We wanted to do top-tier work in a way that was authentic to the people doing it. 

What’s changed since we started in 2018 is the complexity and size of the files have expanded. When we started, it was probably rare for a file to support more than two lawyers. Now, we have a good chunk of those files in the office, so part of our growth has been trying to keep the core feeling and ethos of the firm consistent while the nature of the mandates has expanded.

A: We want to make sure people have substantive experiences on files, which means we need more bodies because we want people, even at a junior level, to have carriage of significant parts of a file. 

We think it’s really important as a litigation law boutique to give people the opportunity to get into court and take on substantive pieces of a file as early in their career as possible. The only way to learn this job is to get out and do it. We staff files leanly because we have excellent people who can carry parts of a file, whether they’re a first year or a fifth year, in a way where the senior person trusts them to do the work.

A: Immediately. We don’t tend to think of people based on their year of call, but more in terms of what their skills are. We’ve had a first year cross-examining an expert at an arbitration because that person was capable of doing it, and the associate did an excellent job. 

We’ve had first-year lawyers make arguments to the Court of Appeal on substantive parts of an appeal, take witnesses at trial, and run motions and small trials. The quicker we can get people doing that type of work, the better the firm is as a whole.

Henein Hutchison Robitaille LLP returns to the winners’ list after being present five times since 2014. Respondents cite the firm’s balance of criminal, commercial, and public law mandates as a point of distinction. 

“Balance of criminal, commercial, public law, investigations mandates of national and international importance executed at the highest standards.”

Babin Bessner Spry LLP has been recognized in many reports going back to 2016–17. Peers point to a practical and strategic approach to resolving disputes alongside strong courtroom advocacy.

“Excellent strategy and advocacy, knowledgeable and skilled, takes a practical approach to resolve disputes quickly and in a cost-effective manner,” says one survey respondent. 
 

“What’s in the best interests of the client is the strategic advice we want to give. To be hard on the issues when it’s in the client's best interest, or to take a step back and look strategically when the analysis favours a different approach”
Michael BookmanBabin Bessner Spry LLP

Cynthia Spry (CS) and Michael Bookman (MB), both partners at Babin Bessner Spry in Toronto, spoke with Canadian Lawyer about what has sustained the firm's recognition.

CS: We’ve been very successful in the mandates we’ve achieved, really since starting the firm, and definitely since 2016, 2017. We’ve always thought of ourselves as a small but mighty firm, primarily because of our exceptional clients who give us the work in the first place and our exceptional team whose support facilitates the work that we do.

Another piece of peer consideration is connections with other lawyers in the industry. Our senior partner, Ed Babin, came from Torys and Davies. I came from Davies and Osler, and Michael came from Davies, as well, so we have great connections that have only grown as the firm has grown.

MB: Cynthia’s speaking to the external factors; we get fantastic mandates, and as a result our peers regularly see us opposite them on significant, tough matters. On an internal basis, I think it’s a testament to the three original partners, Ed (Edward Babin), Ellen (Bessner), and Cynthia, that there’s a culture of excellence and honouring the best traditions and aspirations of the bar. That cultural element has been consistent since the very beginning.

CS: We try to be practical and cost-effective because we want to get the client the best possible result, whether that’s through a pitched battle, fighting on every point, or just a little help to reach a negotiated resolution. 

We don’t like waste, so we want to make sure all the work we’re doing is directed to the desired outcome. But if you have a counterparty who’s unreasonable, then sometimes that is the approach you have to take.

MB: What’s in the best interests of the client is the strategic advice we want to give. To be hard on the issues when it’s in the client's best interest, or to take a step back and look strategically when the analysis favours a different approach. It's an ongoing conversation with the client, keeping their best interests and desired outcome in mind.

MB: I remember one of my first days at the firm, Ed and Cynthia taking me through how I'd be staffed on a matter, very much in the traditional model of a senior and a junior splitting responsibility, developing right at the limit of where I was comfortable, and maybe a bit further, because that's the only way to get better. We’re not a big firm, so you're going to have responsibility as a junior earlier, and we want that for our associates.

CS: We think that to be a great litigator, you need to be in court getting experience, so we actively look for opportunities to develop our associates' skills and get them on their feet litigating early. 

On firm culture, we care deeply about our team, and we’re very careful about who we hire. Ed's tradition is being hard on the issues but soft on the people where we can, and we take that in spades with our associates. We have a really great group of associates and partners who enjoy working together. It's a very collaborative culture.

Woods LLP is the sole Montreal-based firm among the Eastern Canada winners, recognized in every report since 2012. Respondents point to the firm’s scale and the calibre of its senior litigators, including a former Supreme Court of Canada judge. “Number of top litigators, complexity of the files handled, [having a] former Supreme Court of Canada judge and a former Court of Appeal judge, quality of the entire team,” says one. 

Ross Nasseri LLP earns recognition among the Eastern Canada winners. The firm formed in February 2021 when Justin Nasseri’s Goddard Nasseri merged into Mark Ross’ Ross Barristers, a firm that had been practising since 2006, making this year’s recognition new for the combined firm even though the underlying practice is well established. 

Peer feedback points to the firm’s growth trajectory under its current name. “The lawyers support and promote one another and are building a great new firm with smart strategic hiring,” says a respondent. 

Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP (AGM) earns recognition among the Eastern Canada winners for the first time in this report’s history, though the Toronto firm itself has practised since 1992. Peer feedback points to the firm’s combination of senior-level depth and boutique focus, with directory recognition across competition, corporate, and construction litigation. 

“What makes AGM exemplary is that it offers clients the strategic firepower of a top-tier litigation shop without the structural dilution of a large full-service firm,” says one survey respondent. 

Hunter Litigation Chambers is recognized among Western Canada’s top litigation law boutiques, with wins in every edition since 2012. Respondents point to the depth of talent across seniority levels and the firm’s reputation with the courts. 

“The depth of talent, all the senior people are recognized as leading counsel, mid-level practitioners are highly regarded by the courts and administrative tribunals,” says one.
 

“The main thing that has stayed the same is we’re a firm that very much enjoys, and is proud of, what we do. We take pride in our work, and that came from the founders at the very beginning”
Randal Kaardal, KCHunter Litigation Chambers

Randal Kaardal, KC, counsel at Hunter Litigation Chambers in Vancouver, spoke with CL about what has sustained that recognition.

A: The main thing that has stayed the same is we’re a firm that very much enjoys, and is proud of, what we do. We take pride in our work, and that came from the founders at the very beginning, John Hunter, Peter Voith, Bill Berardino, and David Harris. They were all senior practitioners who set a very high standard, both in terms of understanding the client’s needs and what would best serve the client, and in advancing the law. 

We’ve always attracted people who are like-minded, and I like to think our current senior people, myself, Bill Smart, Claire Hunter, and Brian Duong, have a similar attitude and respect for the way to practise. 

We see a continuation of that ethic in the fact that our next generation of lead counsel are all recognized by their peers as leading practitioners.

What’s changed is the speed with which we have to practise. Clients want answers more quickly, courts have put processes in place to get matters on more quickly, and there are often shorter time fuses with injunctions and other types of litigation than there used to be, so we’ve had to keep up to date with technology to make sure we’re well placed to respond.

A: The senior counsel here have worked very hard to make sure that when we go to court, the court can trust what we have to say. We’re very careful and thoughtful about ensuring our client’s best case, one that’s accurate, is put forward to the court. 

There’s a lot more law out there today, more reported decisions, and it’s very difficult for the courts to keep up with it all, so we have to be particularly careful to ensure we’re representing the state of the law accurately. 

Sometimes, we’re arguing in an area where the law isn’t very certain yet, and I think it’s important that we advise the court of that rather than overstate our position. We’re trying to assist the court at all times to come to the correct decision. I think we’ve gained the trust of the courts that they can rely on our submissions. They may disagree with them, but they can rely on the fact that we’re not there leading them astray.

A: We don’t have a true chambers model the way they’d have in England, but our ethic is a bit more of a chambers model than our competitors. Each of our counsel is encouraged to develop their practice as they see fit, provided there aren’t conflicts. So we have people with unique practices, more regulatory work, more criminal work, that wouldn’t touch on my own practice at all.

We argue a full spectrum of cases for all different types of clients, and we’ve acted for and against governmental bodies on Charter cases because we don’t see ourselves as a firm that only supports one particular interest group. 

Because we can take on such a broad variety of work, we get referrals from family law firms, personal injury firms, large corporate commercial litigation, and files for or against the government across all kinds of industries.

Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP has been recognized in most cycles since 2014. Peers point to the firm’s mentoring culture and its in-court experience. “Excellence, depth, and commitment to mentoring,” says one survey respondent, while another calls the firm “lawyers for lawyers, top-tier service and expertise.” 

Ryan Phillips, managing partner at Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes in Calgary, spoke with CL about what has sustained that recognition.

A: It’s one of those things that has just happened organically over time. I don’t think we’ve ever had a plan to grow or expand; it’s just happened naturally. We’re 41 lawyers now, it’s hard to keep track these days; it slowly keeps creeping up as we get busier. 

Clients seem to like the work we’re doing, and we enjoy doing it. We pride ourselves on providing a nimbler and responsive platform to serve clients’ interests and incorporate those interests directly into the work we do, to ensure we’re meeting their needs and advocating for them as best we can. 

It’s worked out well for us in the past, and the results speak for themselves in that we continue to stay busy and grow.

A: We do undertake a deliberate effort to ensure we have a good mentorship structure. It starts from students and more junior lawyers. We implement a buddy system, where you have somebody from the moment you start at the firm to ask any questions about how things work, and to keep tabs on how your progress is going. 

When somebody gets a good decision, an email gets circulated around the firm giving accolades and congratulating people, which makes people feel good, gives them recognition more broadly across the firm, and alerts colleagues to an area someone’s interested in for future files. 

Across 41 lawyers, we all practise broadly in civil and commercial litigation, and within that, there are so many different areas we each focus on. We also have a mentor-mentee system where you’re assigned a mentor you check in with regularly. We had a lawyer start at the firm last year (2025) who comes to me regularly with questions on her files, and I really appreciate it, because I remember being in her shoes. 

When you finish articling, the thought is that you’re a lawyer and ready to practise, but there are a lot of questions that remain, and you learn as you go. Having somebody in a formal structure that you feel comfortable going to is invaluable. 

I’ve been at the firm for almost 13 years now, and I really appreciated having that when I was more junior – being able to go to court and questioning and actually see the senior lawyer on the file in action because there’s no substitute for seeing how it plays out. 

You’re also not just assigned to one or two lawyers. If you express interest in something, you can work with any number of lawyers, see their style, and over time, develop your own by incorporating bits of what each of them does.

A: It’s really a function of being expected as part of the team to carry through the entire file, from the initial analysis and developing the case through to interim hearings and occasionally trial, incorporating more junior lawyers into those aspects. 

I was in a hearing yesterday with a more junior associate who’s been helping me on the matter, and in many situations, we actually offer the opportunity for students to show up and observe without billing any time to the file, because that’s deliberate. It helps them learn and become excellent lawyers and fosters a cohesive culture. 

When those opportunities come up, we make an attempt to ensure that if you’re working with a more senior lawyer on a file, you’re involved at every stage, showing up at hearings and trials to contribute in a meaningful way. 

Relatively recently, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench sent out a notice encouraging more junior lawyers to give submissions. We support that, so where it’s appropriate, a junior lawyer helping on the file may take parts of the submissions, and as they get more comfortable, they take on more and more responsibility.

HMC Lawyers LLP drew one of the highest comment volumes of any firm surveyed this cycle. Respondents describe a firm offering big-firm calibre work without big-firm structure, along with long-tenured staff. 

“I have now stayed employed with HMC Lawyers for 30-plus years. Not only are they professional in their work and in their dealings with their clients, they also go out of their way to make their employees feel like family,” says one survey respondent. 
 

“Repeat clients remember how quickly somebody responded to them, and they remember how they are treated, which I think, in many cases, is probably as important as the end result”
Michael Hokanson, KCHMC Lawyers LLP

Michael Hokanson, KC, managing partner at HMC Lawyers in Calgary, spoke with CL about what sustains that culture.

A: We do a lot of stuff together. Many of the lawyers go out for lunch once a week as a group, and we have a retreat coming up in the fall where all of the lawyers in the office and their families are going to Victoria for a few days. 

It’s important to the firm that spouses and significant others are acknowledged, and that people can bring their kids, so our families spend time together. We have people at all sorts of different demographic levels, from old guys like me, younger families with toddlers running around, and also some of the younger people without families. There’s a real sense of belonging and family for the whole group. 

We’re friends outside of work, too. I think people see that lawyers in our office have been here a long time, and they understand what drives that. We’re also very careful to hire lawyers we expect will fit into our culture and who genuinely want to be here. 

We want and expect our people to be excellent lawyers, but it’s a much bigger deal that the person will fit within the group, and I think the reason for the longevity of our office is because we genuinely like one another. We also take a genuine interest in the advancement and goals of each person. For instance, we have 1:1 partner/associate mentorship meetings every month.

A: We do think we provide a pretty high level of litigation services within our lanes. We have a growing family law department, an employment law group, a construction law group, commercial litigation, and insurance, with a lot of cross-promotion between those groups. 

That means we find the right person to do the job rather than keeping work to ourselves, which lends itself to a lot more collaboration. I think that’s part of why we get work where there’s a national firm on the other side, because a number of our lawyers are regularly dealing with lawyers from the national firms on similar work. 

We also do a fair bit of conflict work for big firms because we’re smaller and don’t have the same massive volume of clients. So, we don’t run into the same conflict problems that they do, and the referring people know the work will be handled well.

A: We have a unique approach to file and client ownership that encourages collaboration rather than internal competition. This allows us to put the best lawyer on a task regardless of the client, and that encourages a quality of work and result that allows us to compete with anyone in the litigation market. 

We are small enough that we don’t need to formally track origination as a metric. Everyone who is here has a good idea of who brings what to the table, and we find that some of the traditional origination metrics can lead to behaviour that is much more oriented to the individual as opposed to the team.

Because we aren’t meticulously tracking who opens what file, the person who’s available and right for the work can be assigned the work, rather than someone holding onto a client relationship. 

If it’s better for the client to have somebody else do the work, we have that other person do it, and the clients are happy. Repeat clients remember how quickly somebody responded to them, and they remember how they are treated, which I think, in many cases, is probably as important as the end result, though the end result obviously matters, too. 

Excellent lawyers lose cases, too. We have clients who’ve had a bad result who keep coming back because they appreciate how we do things. If the focus is on the work rather than on who gets credit for it, the clients tend to be happy.

McEwan Partners LLP returns to recognition this cycle from its Vancouver base. Peer feedback points to bench strength as the firm’s defining quality. “Excellent bench strength,” says one respondent. 

Nathanson Schachter & Thompson LLP has been recognized in most cycles since 2014. Respondents describe a strategic, client-tailored approach to litigation. “All partners are experienced litigation counsel who take a strategic approach from the outset of a file, tailored to the particular needs of the file and client,” one respondent says.

As client demand for senior-level attention continues to outpace what many full-service firms can offer at a comparable cost, Canada’s litigation law boutiques appear well positioned heading into the next survey cycle, particularly as litigation risk continues to expand across jurisdictions from class actions to mass tort claims.

The firms that have sustained recognition across multiple cycles point to a formula that seems durable regardless of market conditions: senior lawyer availability, trial readiness, and a scale small enough to keep clients working directly with the partners they hired.

Several winners point to succession as the next test of that model. At Hunter Litigation Chambers, Randal Kaardal, KC, points to the firm’s own generational transition as proof the formula holds. 

“We’ve had good succession and evolution,” he says, citing Claire Hunter’s rise to a national profile more than 20 years after the firm’s founders began practising together, with a newer group of lawyers about a decade behind her already recognized in peer guides as leaders in their field. 

Jordan Goldblatt at Adair Goldblatt Bieber describes a similar deliberate approach, developing junior lawyers quickly enough that they can eventually take over the firm’s senior work. “The quicker we can get people doing that type of work, the better the firm is as a whole,” he says.

Keeping pace with a faster litigation environment is another pressure winners named directly. “Clients want answers more quickly. The courts have put processes in place to try and get matters on more quickly,” Kaardal says, pointing to shorter timelines on injunctions and other urgent matters as a reason firms have had to invest in technology to keep up. 

That pressure compounds as mandates grow in size and complexity, a trend Emily Lawrence at Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein and Goldblatt both raised independently when describing how their firms have grown their benches to match.

A: Personal injury litigation is still very active and will continue to be. There have been significant legislative changes, particularly to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which will have a real impact since they came into effect on July 1, 2026. Personal injury litigation continues to generate a great deal of cases, occupiers’ liability cases among them. We’re also aware of the activity in class actions, though we don’t handle those ourselves.

A: Skill is a question of experience and the ability to handle complex cases. The more cases you handle, sometimes the greater skill you obtain, and trying cases sharpens your skill set and enhances your experience. Lawyers who practise in this area also build their skills through organizations, seminars, and conferences, and by sharing what they learn from those with their colleagues. It’s evolving; it’s always evolving and growing, never standing still.

A: AI is very helpful for indexing and summarizing records, particularly with the volume of medical records these cases generate, sometimes thousands of pages. It’s not a substitute for lawyers’ role in advocacy, and it cannot yet be an advocate, but it saves time and makes processes more efficient. Firms need to be careful about privacy, though. You have to have policies and procedures in place to make sure client information isn’t put into tools like ChatGPT without safeguards.

Across 15 winners and eight survey cycles, the same qualities surface again and again: 

• senior lawyers who stay close to the file

• a genuine willingness to go to trial

• a scale that keeps client relationships direct rather than layered
   

What separates this year’s list from a simple ranking is how many firms have proven that more than once – and none of them are defending it passively. 

Hunter Litigation Chambers and Adair Goldblatt Bieber both described deliberately developing junior lawyers into leadership roles well ahead of the traditional timeline, while Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein pointed to collegiality and referral relationships built over decades as a competitive asset in their own right. 

Recognition earned once is a moment. Recognition earned across 14 years is a discipline.

Top Litigation Law Boutiques 2026 

• 
  Stockwoods LLP
   
  
• 
  Adair Goldblatt Bieber LLP
   
  
• 
  Babin Bessner Spry LLP
   
  
• 
  HMC Lawyers LLP
   
  
• 
  Hunter Litigation Chambers
   
  
• 
  Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
   
  
• 
  Woods LLP