Jump to winners | Jump to methodology
Specialisation matters more than ever. Today’s clients are not simply looking for legal services but trusted advisers with deep sectoral knowledge and the ability to deliver outcomes in unfamiliar or high-risk circumstances.
“The legal profession is becoming increasingly specialised, driven by demographic changes, technological advancements and evolving regulatory demands. Law firms are responding by diversifying their services and investing in specialised areas,” says Nicola Cosgrove, co-founder of Lext Australia.
Australasian Lawyer and NZ Lawyer recognise the Top Specialist Firms 2025 leading the way in their respective sectors, who have built reputations as true experts. Specialist law firms bring focused experience and tailored insights that make them indispensable for clients navigating nuanced issues.
Cosgrove pinpoints the areas that firms are focusing on. She says, “There is strong and growing demand for legal expertise in emerging and specialised areas such as privacy law, cybersecurity and environmental, social and governance matters. Additionally, demand for wills and estates is increasing due to demographic shifts and intergenerational wealth transfers.”
High-profile cyber incidents have also catalysed investment in breach preparedness, while emerging AI applications are generating complex questions around intellectual property, liability and regulatory compliance.
David Turner, partner at corporate advisory firm Empirical Law, says, “Large law firms are moving to develop or acquire cyber response practices to meet that demand.”
Specialist firms with the foresight to build capabilities in these domains are becoming key strategic partners to both corporate and government clients.
Jason Elias, managing director of legal specialists Elias Recruitment, believes demand for niche experts will continue to grow as cases become more complex.
"A lawyer who focuses on a particular area is going to be somebody that you're more likely to want to trust your livelihood and liberty to."
For decades, specialist knowledge was the foundation of differentiation; however, that edge is eroding in some cases. The widespread availability of legal information – through both open-access and commercial tools – has enabled generalists to gain surface-level proficiency in specialised areas. AI is accelerating this, allowing even non-experts to generate passable outputs in niche domains.
What will continue to set top specialist firms apart is not just what they know, but how they use it. Experience, especially in rare or high-stakes scenarios, is emerging as the new gold standard. The ability to guide clients through complex regulatory environments, drawing on hard-won insights and contextual understanding, is what defines their value.
Turner points to how the best specialist firms master the ability to recruit the correct lawyers who fit their model. He says, “The real challenge is that as a result of that baseline requirement for deep knowledge and experience in a particular field, or one closely adjacent to it, you have a much-reduced pool of candidates in which to find the qualities that make a good hire in any practice with qualities like initiative, judgement, courage, empathy and commerciality.”
And Cosgrove echoes this by explaining how specialist lawyers have options and are attracted to the best firms in their sectors. “The market is highly competitive, with firms competing for a small pool of candidates who often have multiple opportunities and can afford to be selective, making it essential for firms to differentiate themselves through culture, values, work-life balance and flexibility.”
To sustain their edge, the Top Specialist Firms of 2025 have embraced innovation, prioritised talent development and redefined value through experience rather than just expertise.
The market shift for specialism is backed up by data from the legal practice management software Actionstep, which showed “nearly 4 in 5 (78%) Australian law firm professionals believe that specialised expertise is crucial to their firm’s ability to deliver efficient services to clients”.
The litmus test for law firms is how they perform in practice. Below, some of the Top Specialist Firms of 2025 spotlight three cases across the last 12 months that showcase their expertise, judgement and application.
1. Client name: Martinus Rail Pty Ltd
Industry sector: Rail infrastructure
Jurisdiction: NSW
Deal value: $220 million
CDI Lawyers acted for Martinus in a series of adjudication applications under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) against Qube Holdings Ltd on the Moorebank Interstate Terminal Development. The Moorebank Interstate Precinct is Australia’s largest intermodal terminal, with a total annual freight capacity of 1,550,000 TEU.
For the reader’s information, security of payment legislation is enacted across all states and territories in Australia to assist contractors, subcontractors and suppliers in the construction industry to be paid for the work they perform. One of the main features of the legislation is a fast-track dispute resolution process via statutory adjudication. Statutory adjudication is one of the primary forums to recover cash in the construction industry, as it is much faster and cost-effective than litigation or arbitration.
The matter related to disputes about the cost of work performed by Martinus and responsibility for construction delays that had arisen between Martinus and Qube with respect to two contracts between the parties for the construction of the interstate rail terminal and rail access.
CDI Lawyers was engaged by Martinus in early 2023 to assist Martinus with the recovery of money from Qube. Martinus recovered circa $15 million from Qube pursuant to initial adjudication applications prepared by CDI Lawyers. Martinus’ success at adjudication contributed to Qube’s decision to terminate both contracts with Martinus in September 2023.
Following termination of the contracts, CDI Lawyers prepared final adjudication applications against Qube to seek the balance of the amount that Martinus considered was owed by Qube under the two contracts.
Martinus claimed approximately $100 million in total under the adjudication applications. In July 2024, after approximately four months of deliberations, the appointed adjudicator decided that Martinus was entitled to further payment of approximately $70 million (including GST) from Qube.
Significance of the firm’s involvement: This excellent result reflected CDI Lawyers’ expertise and experience in acting for claimants in adjudications under the national security of payment legislation.
2. Client name: Ignite Projects
Industry sector: Luxury residential development
Jurisdiction: Qld
Deal value: $80 million
Acted for Ignite Projects in relation to The Monaco development located on Main Beach, Gold Coast, Qld. The Monaco is a 24-storey luxury development comprised of half- and full-floor apartments, with a double-floor penthouse.
Ignite Projects contracted under a special purpose vehicle created for the project: Elevate Main Beach Pty Ltd. Ignite engaged McNab Developments as the head contractor for the design and construction of the tower.
The luxurious nature of The Monaco meant that there was a high degree of purchaser customisation for each apartment. This had an impact on the cost and time required to complete the project, and the parties fell into dispute about contractual responsibility for these costs and delays.
In 2024, McNab made two adjudication applications against Ignite Projects, seeking payment of additional money pursuant to the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld). CDI Lawyers prepared the adjudication responses on behalf of Ignite Projects.
In the first application, McNab sought payment of circa $13 million and was only awarded $2.7 million, of which all but $900,000 had already been paid by Ignite Projects to McNab.
In the second application, McNab sought payment of $5 million and was awarded $NIL. After the completion of The Monaco, CDI Lawyers advised Ignite Projects in relation to the winding up and voluntary liquidation of the special purpose vehicle corporate entity. That process was concluded in April 2025.
Significance of the firm’s involvement: Adjudication under security of payment legislation is typically a claimant-friendly forum. Despite this, CDI Lawyers secured two excellent results in favour of its respondent client.
3. Client name: Visionstream Pty Ltd (subsidiary of Ventia Limited)
Industry sector: Transportation infrastructure
Jurisdiction: Qld
Deal value: $500 million+
Acts for Visionstream Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Ventia Limited, in complex proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland involving 14 parties arising from the Gateway Bridge and motorway in Brisbane, Qld.
The Gateway Upgrade Project began in 2006 and involved upgrading a 20-km corridor, including lane additions and the duplication of the existing bridge. The proceedings involve tens of thousands of alleged defects associated with the design, construction and maintenance of the project.
The quantum of the dispute is increasing over time: recent expert quantum evidence saw a $40 million element of the claim increase to $284 million.
During the disclosure phase, CDI utilised artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to reduce the initial 6 million files relating to the project to 180,000 potentially relevant files and then to facilitate the review of those files in an efficient and cost-effective manner. As a result of the efficiencies achieved, actual fees for review were $170,000 lower than the lowest range estimate and over $600,000 lower than the high range estimate.
This matter is ongoing.
Significance of the firm’s involvement: CDI Lawyers’ involvement in this matter showcases its agility and willingness to adapt and identify innovative strategies to maximise value to our clients.
Prosecuted a class action and achieved a substantial settlement brought on behalf of 32 victims of Melissa Caddick against the auditors engaged to conduct annual audits of their self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs). It was the first class action in Australia concerning SMSF auditor duties.
Melissa Caddick was an unlicensed financial adviser based in Sydney. She defrauded approximately $23 million from her clients between 2012 and her disappearance on 20 November 2020, following an ASIC raid on her home the day before.
Ms Caddick’s scheme involved purporting to be a legitimate financial adviser operating a financial services business, Maliver Pty Ltd (Maliver). Investors provided funds to Ms Caddick and Maliver in the belief that the funds were being invested in ASX-listed equities using CommSec accounts. In fact, the “investments” never existed, and the money paid by the investors was instead diverted for Ms Caddick’s own use.
The documents purporting to record the investments and how they were performing were fraudulent creations of Ms Caddick.
In some cases, when investors sought to withdraw money from Maliver, Ms Caddick purported to pay them from their investment. It is now understood that the investor was being paid money from the pool of funds that investors had invested with Ms Caddick and Maliver – a classic Ponzi scheme.
Receivers were appointed to Ms Caddick and Maliver’s assets, and they were ultimately able to recover assets from her assets to repay the victims 39 cents on the dollar of what they had lost. Prior to commencing the class action, Mackay Chapman acted for investors in the Federal Court receivership proceedings to assist them with recovering those funds.
The class action was commenced in September 2023. It alleged that auditors engaged to review the annual financial reports for the SMSFs failed to identify fraudulent documents prepared by Ms Caddick and failed to confirm that the assets said to be held by the SMSFs in fact existed.
Over eight years between 2012 and 2020, at least five auditors were engaged to conduct the mandatory annual audit of the SMSFs. The auditors all provided audit reports that, in effect, gave the SMSFs a clean bill of health. Specifically, all of the audit reports found that the financial reports for the SMSFs were “free from material misstatement” and “presented fairly in all material respects the financial position of the SMSF”. In other words, they did not identify any concerns.
We now know the financial reports reviewed by the auditors were supported by fraudulent documentation prepared by Ms Caddick and the assets said to be held by the SMSFs did not exist.
The class action alleged that the auditors failed in their duties by failing to identify fraudulent documents prepared by Ms Caddick and failing to confirm that the assets said to be held by the SMSFs in fact existed.
The actions brought against the auditors were negligence, breach of contract, misleading or deceptive conduct and/or misleading or deceptive representations, and other contraventions, including breaches of the Corporations Act 2001 and ASIC Act 2001.
It was a highly complex case with multiple respondents. Most class actions are against one or two parties. This was against five respondents with multiple different legal representatives. Despite this, having commenced in September 2023, settlement was reached in less than 18 months.
The settlement achieved two important objectives. First, it achieved a fair and reasonable amount of compensation. Second, it obtained resolution in a short time frame. It was important not just to obtain the maximum amount in recovery but also to ensure the outcome was timely and efficient, given the group members were made up of retirees, elderly persons and many other vulnerable people. They could not afford a drawn-out proceeding.
Achieved an in-principle settlement by October 2024, and the settlement was finalised and approved by 1 April 2025. A period of 18 months from commencement to approval.
The key to achieving this effective result in the context of a complex, multi-party claim was always being guided by our clients’ objectives of an efficient but fair outcome and drawing focus to the strongest parts of the claim without being drawn into unnecessary or non-core arguments.
The court approved the settlement sum and all of the legal costs and deductions to be made from the settlement sum, as well as payment of a funding commission to the litigation funder, Therium Litigation Finance.
2. Settlement of a long-running dispute with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO)
In November 2024, settled on confidential but favourable terms a hotly disputed and long-running dispute with the ATO, with the primary tax liability being in excess of $12 million.
The case arose from the sale of an education business, the value of which jumped up significantly after the sale had completed in 2010, but before the earn-out period had expired over two further years, substantially increasing the earn-out value payable to the vendors. The increased value in the business was due to unforeseen changes with respect to registered training organisations in Victoria in 2011, which greatly expanded who could enrol in RTO courses, thereby substantially increasing the value of the business.
The increased value was a welcome surprise to the vendors until the tax assessment arrived, and it became clear the ATO was determined to apply hindsight to how the value of the transaction was to be assessed.
After many years of delay, the ATO eventually issued tax assessments in excess of $12 million to the vendor arising from allegedly unpaid CGT liabilities from the sale – for a value the vendor could never have known it was worth at the time it was sold. The central position taken by the ATO was that the value should be assessed by what the business was worth after the sale, rather than the contractual price.
Appealed this unfair assessment in the Federal Court, submitting strong evidentiary grounds and legal submissions to counter the retrospective position being taken by the ATO.
After two unresolved mediations amidst hard-fought litigation, ultimately able to secure a confidential settlement on very favourable terms to the taxpayer.
The key to this successful outcome was anticipating the overly bureaucratic and technical arguments being put forward by the ATO to keep the litigation within sensible bounds, staying on top of large amounts of complicated information and remaining focused on a common-sense approach leveraging the principles of legal fairness.
In May 2024, acted for international litigation funder Therium Litigation Finance in obtaining settlement approval from Justice Lee of the Federal Court of the settlement of the Axsesstoday class action.
This was a significant case in Australian litigation funding jurisprudence because it upheld the legitimacy and fairness of the particular litigation funding model used in that case, and Therium was as a result entitled to all the deductions sought. Achieving full deductions for litigation funds has been increasingly difficult to achieve, so this was a standout outcome for that reason.
The class action was brought by bondholders against Axsesstoday Limited (AXL) in relation to losses suffered following various financial difficulties in 2019. The class action alleged that AXL made misleading and deceptive statements and failed to disclose the impact of a new accounting standard (AASB9) on its financial position in a 2018 bond prospectus. The class action sought recovery of the shortfall on the bonds and unpaid interest.
Settlement was achieved with the accounting adviser, PricewaterhouseCoopers Securities (PWCS), agreeing to pay $8.25 million as part of the settlement and insurers paying a further approximately $1 million in settlement.
1. In April 2025, successfully overturned the refusal of a Subclass 866 Protection Visa for a mother and her three children.
The department had rejected the application, citing lack of credibility and insufficient evidence. On appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal (formerly AAT), the firm provided detailed legal submissions supported by a clinical psychologist’s report documenting the applicant’s trauma, along with extensive country condition research highlighting worsening circumstances in Pakistan.
Post-hearing, submitted further evidence establishing psychological dependency of the applicant’s adult children. The tribunal accepted arguments, set aside the refusal and remitted the case for a new decision – finding the family met the criteria for protection under Section 36 of the Migration Act. One week after receiving our post-hearing submissions, the tribunal set aside the refusal and remitted the application for reconsideration.
It found that the main applicant met the criteria under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act and that her children satisfied section 36(2)(b)(i) as members of the same family unit. The outcome not only secured protection for a vulnerable family but also demonstrated our the firm’s specialist capability in complex appeal matters requiring multidisciplinary evidence and long-term case management.
2. In May 2025, represented an overseas company seeking to establish its Australian presence through a subclass 482 visa under the new Skills in Demand (SID) stream.
The company had opened a local branch in September 2023 and sought to sponsor its sole Australian-based employee, who was then holding a Subclass 417 visa. By the time of application, the business had generated no turnover during the 2024 financial year – a factor that, combined with its limited trading history and single-employee structure, posed significant challenges under the Standard Business Sponsorship (SBS), Nomination and Visa criteria.
The firm developed a strategy focused on demonstrating the genuine need for the nominated role and addressing concerns about business viability. It submitted evidence of anticipated revenue streams, a robust business plan and documentation showing strong financial and operational support from the overseas parent company.
Despite the early-stage nature of the business and zero turnover, the SBS and Nomination were approved in under a month. The subclass 482 SID visa application is now pending finalisation, awaiting only the provision of a police check.
3. Acted for an unlawful non-citizen in immigration detention who had missed the deadline to lodge a substantive visa under s 195 of the Migration Act.
The client, an unlawful non-citizen, approached the firm after missing the statutory deadline for lodging a substantive visa application under section 195 of the Migration Act while in immigration detention. He was in a committed spousal relationship with an Australian citizen and the father of three young Australian citizen children.
His Bridging Visa E application was refused on the basis that he was barred from applying while in detention. On review at the AAT, the firm submitted that he intended to lodge a partner visa once released and challenged the delegate’s reliance on Liu v. MIAC as non-binding.
The firm argued that cl 050.212(3)(b) allows for a bridging visa to facilitate a future application once a person is out of detention. The tribunal agreed with this interpretation, overturned the refusal, and granted the visa. As a result, he was released from detention and is now able to reunite with his family and proceed with a partner visa application.
While AL and NZL’s winning firms focus on distinct areas of law, they share key traits that elevate their service, enhance client outcomes and position them as industry leaders.
Hyper-focused expertise and unique market niches
The hallmark of a top-tier specialist firm is unmatched subject-matter expertise, often honed over decades. Immigration Solutions Lawyers, for example, has spent over 30 years navigating complex migration law, handling high-stakes matters across judicial and administrative review, family migration, and corporate sponsorships. Its long-standing reputation stems from not only its legal proficiency but also its international affiliations and role in shaping migration law domestically and abroad.
Similarly, Ligeti Partners has carved out a unique leadership position in the niche field of motor property insurance litigation. It acts for many of the largest motor property insurers in Australia, as well as large claims management corporations and emerging insurers.
“Many of our competitors regard motor property insurance litigation as an ancillary area to what they see as other, more lucrative areas of insurance litigation. At Ligeti’s, we genuinely love what we do, are passionate about it and live and breathe our work.”
The firm’s creation of a dedicated credit hire team and proprietary database, combined with extensive industry content contributions, proves why it is indispensable to Australia’s leading insurers.
Multi-dimensional perspectives and cross-sector expertise
Firms such as Construction Legal bring a distinctive edge by merging legal and technical acumen. The firm’s fusion of tier-one legal services with engineering experience on construction projects enables it to spot both contractual and technical issues – delivering forensic, risk-aware advice rarely matched by conventional legal providers.
Jessica Rippon leads the legal division, supported by co-director husband Shawn, a major projects specialist with 30 years of experience as an engineer and commercial director on multi-billion-dollar government projects.
“Our clients are repeatedly blown away when we pick up technical discrepancies – the sort of oversights that could otherwise leave them exposed to litigation down the track. This truly synergistic service has not only proven invaluable to our growing roster of clients but also led to our firm surpassing all its business goals each year.”
Strategic litigation and commercial acumen
Dispute-focused firms such as Twomey Dispute Lawyers demonstrate that laser-sharp focus yields results. Eschewing general practice distractions, it channels all resources into litigation, attracting top-tier talent and maintaining agile operations that offer clients direct access to senior litigators.
The firm’s blend of litigation strategy and commercial foresight has led to rapid growth and exceptional outcomes in high-stakes disputes across Australia. The firm says, “We don’t dilute our expertise by upselling ancillary legal services, such as estate planning or conveyancing. We achieve this by maintaining an optimal lawyer-to-client ratio, avoiding stretched resources, and offering direct access to senior litigators.”
Kingston & Partners, despite being only four years old, excel in the fast-paced, high-pressure world of non-bank lending and private banking. Its specialists operate nationally with jurisdiction-specific knowledge and fast turnaround, enabled by streamlined systems and deep client integration.
“We provide quicker turnaround times than our competitors, with significant investment into systems and processes to ensure we don’t compromise on producing high-quality work.”
Human-centred advocacy and community impact
For many leading firms, excellence goes beyond legal knowledge. Henry Carus + Associates puts people at the heart of its personal injury practice. Its eponymous founder’s rare litigation background and deep understanding of insurer tactics, combined with an unwavering client-first philosophy, enable the firm to deliver for injured Victorians.
With a commitment to empathy, accessibility, and excellence, we have built a reputation that puts people first,” the firm says. “We fight for more than just compensation – we fight for justice, dignity, and a better future for every person who walks through our doors.”
Black Door Law, a values-driven employment law firm, similarly blends technical precision with empathy. With a holistic, personalised approach across industries, the firm is known for guiding public and private sector clients through complex workplace issues. Its conscious decision to avoid government panel work preserves independence, allowing it to act in the public interest when needed.
Innovation in technology, processes and client engagement
Litigation and dispute resolution specialist Norling Law is redefining how a modern law firm operates, from implementing its EOS Entrepreneurial Operating System to hiring a non-lawyer COO, Glenn Marvin, who is trained in business management and is a certified Scaling Up Coach and practitioner with 18 years of experience in scaling “fast firms”. Initiatives – such as the NorLearn internal education platform, extensive social media content and incentivised staff innovation programs – position the firm as a future-ready firm with scalable, efficient operations.
With cloud-based systems and document automation, Norling Law provides flexible, globally accessible legal services while maintaining client-centric efficiency. Its transparency, free legal resources and digital consultations set a high standard for how legal services can be delivered in the digital age.
“We are strong believers that the legal industry is behind the rest of the business world with utilising modern technologies and business management strategies, and that unless the industry adapts, it will see consequential losses in the near future.”
Australia and New Zealand’s leading specialist firms don’t succeed by simply narrowing their practice – they thrive by deepening their value.
Whether through unmatched technical knowledge, interdisciplinary strength, a client-first philosophy or operational innovation, these firms are proving that specialisation is not a limitation but a launchpad for leadership.
They reflect a legal future defined by excellence, empathy and evolution – where being the best means going beyond the brief to deliver true partnership, impact and innovation.
From 27 January to 21 February, Australasian Lawyer and NZ Lawyer accepted nominations for the Top Specialist Firms 2025 (previously Top Boutique Firms) list. The team was on the lookout for firms that derived at least 50% of their revenue from one practice area. Firms were invited to nominate candidates via an online entry form. Entrants were asked to name their area of specialisation, describe their achievements over the past 12 months and explain why they stood apart from their competitors.
The nominations were evaluated based on the strength of the matters handled by the firms, their longevity in the profession, their client service delivery approach and noteworthy achievements in meeting clients’ needs.
At the end of the review process, 70 firms emerged as the cream of the crop and earned the right to be recognised as the Top Specialist Firms in Australia and New Zealand this year.
