Morrison & Foerster LLP vs. Goodwin Procter LLP
Side-by-side on the metrics that actually drive the student's call. Sources: Vault 2027, AmLaw 200 FY2025, and reported Chambers records from the years shown.
Swipe sideways to see every firm, or focus the comparison and use the arrow keys.
Est. 1883
Morrison & Foerster LLP is a 1,000-plus-attorney firm, AmLaw #42. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Artificial Intelligence, Corporate/M&A: Deals in Asia, and FCPA. Operates from 16 offices worldwide.
Est. 1912 · Boston
Goodwin Procter LLP is a 1,000-plus-attorney firm, AmLaw #21, founded in Boston, Massachusetts. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Banking & Finance: Corporate & Regulatory, Capital Markets, and Corporate/M&A. Operates from 10 offices worldwide.
- Vault rank
- #27
- AmLaw rank
- #42
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 15 records
- Vault rank
- #31
- AmLaw rank
- #21
- Reported Chambers Band 1 records
- 18 records
- First-year comp
- $225,000+
- Profits per partner
- $3.29M
- Firm revenue
- $1.54B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $1.51M
- First-year comp
- $255,000+
- Profits per partner
- $4.24M
- Firm revenue
- $2.72B
- Revenue per lawyer
- $1.63M
- Billable target
- 1,950
- Partnership track
- -
- US associates per partner
- -
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~1,000
- Offices
- 16
- Billable target
- 1,950
- Partnership track
- -
- US associates per partner
- -
- Firm size (rounded to 50)
- ~1,650
- Offices
- 10
- Offer rate
- 98.6%
- Class size
- 78 (year not confirmed)
- How associates get work
- -
- Specific practice area
- Yes
- Offer rate
- 100%
- Class size
- 67 (year not confirmed)
- How associates get work
- Centralized staffing
- Specific practice area
- Case by Case
Shared results are listed once. Green marks only a lower reported Chambers band for the same exact practice, market and year. Records with a missing year or market are not compared. Historical records are retained; individual ranking verification status is not available.
Shared rankings
Rank differences
Firm-only and additional rankings remain available on each firm profile so missing coverage is not mistaken for a head-to-head loss.
Data sources: Vault 2027, AmLaw 200 FY2025, and reported Chambers records from the years shown. Chambers record counts can span years and reporting coverage varies; missing years or markets are not compared. Current Chambers bands were checked against each firm’s Chambers profile on Sep 26, 2026; where Chambers splits a table, every Elite firm ranks above every Highly Regarded firm. Missing values shown as “-”.
More head-to-head comparisons
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore vs. Morrison & Foerster
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore vs. Goodwin Procter
- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz vs. Morrison & Foerster
- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz vs. Goodwin Procter
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom vs. Morrison & Foerster
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom vs. Goodwin Procter
- Latham & Watkins vs. Morrison & Foerster
- Latham & Watkins vs. Goodwin Procter
- Sullivan & Cromwell vs. Morrison & Foerster
- Sullivan & Cromwell vs. Goodwin Procter
- Kirkland & Ellis vs. Morrison & Foerster
- Kirkland & Ellis vs. Goodwin Procter
Firm data comes from each firm’s own publications, Chambers USA and Vault; see Morrison & Foerster and Goodwin Procter for sources and dates.