hen a San Francisco law firm steps into the technology arena, comparisons to Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Venture Law Group seem inevitable.
Some Silicon Valley firms continue to turn their noses up at Morrison & Foerster, saying its old-line practice areas, such as banking and real estate, prevent it from becoming a true technology player despite some significant successes the firm has achieved in the tech world.
But in some ways, MoFo is were the Wilsons of the world want to be.
Tech-centric firms like Wilson are now expanding their practices to handle all the needs of their maturing tech clients.
And with its diversified client base, MoFo will feel less of a slap if there's a sharp drop in the technology sector.
Morrison is coming off a stellar year, the pay-off of a three-year makeover in which the litigation stalwart has decided to focus much more on business and technology.
Its graceful and successful self-transformation should be the envy of its San Francisco-based competitors, even if Palo Alto's big boys remain unimpressed.
The fact is, MoFo's business model remains starkly different from Wilson Sonsini's.
Wilson grew 28 percent last year by continuing its intensive, exclusive focus on the technology sector.
Rather than limit itself to just the needs of technology clients, Morrison has chosen to advise non-technology businesses on their tech issues.
"They are serving tech needs cross-industry," says Avis Caravello,
a San Francisco headhunter who is helping MoFo with its sizeable
recruiting efforts.
Staying rooted in old-line companies may be the only realistic strategy available to MoFo. Let's not kid ourselves: The firm is never going to have Wilson's clout in the Valley. But it's also a strategy that makes sense given MoFo's strength as a full-service firm.
The gambit seems to be working, with the firm growing its revenues 17 percent in 1999.
To be sure, MoFo partners are making less than their counterparts at Wilson.
But it never seemed MoFo partners were particularly obsessed with money. And anyway, the better comparison of profitability is to other San Francisco full-service firms like Pillsbury Madison & Sutro and Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, both of which are hoping to help themselves to a bigger slice of silicon pie.
Both of those firms are lagging well behind MoFo's 1999 profits-per-partner of $605,000.
It's worth noting how elegantly MoFo has steered its transition. Three years ago, the firm decided to become more business and bottom line-oriented. But while similar manifestos at other firms have meant rolling heads, bitter ex-partners and tumbling pro bono hours, Morrison & Foerster appears to have suffered little of the above.
Sure, MoFo attorneys love to indulge in angst about firm culture. But so far, all seems well: Lawyers aren't fleeing, and the firm's pro bono commitment remains among the strongest in the country.
Chalk those successes up to "the MoFo difference" -- the things that make MoFo different from the Wilsons as well as from its San Francisco competitors.
Vive la différence.
