Skip to main content

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP vs. Morrison & Foerster 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.

+ Add firm

Swipe sideways to see every firm, or focus the comparison and use the arrow keys.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Est. 1986

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is a 1,000-plus-attorney firm, Vault #14 / AmLaw #20. Jurisdiction-specific Chambers rankings include Band 1 in Antitrust: Mainly Plaintiff, Antitrust: Plaintiff, and Bankruptcy Litigation. Operates from 33 offices worldwide.

Morrison & Foerster LLP

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.

Rankings & prestige
Vault rank
#14
AmLaw rank
#20
Reported Chambers Band 1 records
8 records
Vault rank
#27
AmLaw rank
#42
Reported Chambers Band 1 records
15 records
Compensation
First-year comp
$235,000+
Profits per partner
$9.54M
Firm revenue
$2.77B
Revenue per lawyer
$2.45M
First-year comp
$225,000+
Profits per partner
$3.29M
Firm revenue
$1.54B
Revenue per lawyer
$1.51M
Work & scale
Billable target
-
Partnership track
7 years
US associates per partner
-
Firm size (rounded to 50)
~1,150
Offices
33
Billable target
1,950
Partnership track
-
US associates per partner
-
Firm size (rounded to 50)
~1,000
Offices
16
Summer program
Offer rate
-
Class size
-
How associates get work
-
Specific practice area
No
Offer rate
98.6%
Class size
78 (year not confirmed)
How associates get work
-
Specific practice area
Yes
Chambers by practice, market and year

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

Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation · California · 2026Band 1
Bankruptcy/Restructuring · Nationwide · 2026Band 3 · The Elite
Intellectual Property: Trademark & Copyright · Nationwide · 2026Band 3
Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations · California · 2026Band 4

Rank differences

FCPANationwide · 2026
Band 5
Band 1
Intellectual PropertyNationwide · 2026
Band 1
Band 2
Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright & Trade SecretsCalifornia · 2026
Band 2
Band 1
Life Sciences: IP/Patent LitigationCalifornia · 2026
Band 3
Band 1
Litigation: General CommercialCalifornia · 2026
Band 1 · Elite
Band 2 · Elite
Litigation: General CommercialNationwide · 2026
Band 1 · Elite
Band 3 · Elite
Litigation: General CommercialNew York · 2026
Band 1 · Elite
Band 4 · Elite
Privacy & Data Security: LitigationNationwide · 2026
Band 3
Band 1
Intellectual Property: Trade SecretsNationwide · 2026
Band 3
Band 2
International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337)Nationwide · 2026
Band 2
Band 4
Life SciencesNationwide · 2026
Band 4
Band 2
Litigation: SecuritiesCalifornia · 2026
Band 3
Band 2

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 “-”.