Law firms are a way of organizing game animals. Two zebras have no need to compete over eating from the same patch of grass. One zebra just moves over by a few meters. There's enough grass for everyone. Even if there isn't enough grass, fighting over grass is not energetically efficient. You burn more calories than the grass is worth. In law firms, a client is generally handled by at most one partner, and there are enough clients to go around to keep all partners busy while allowing them to work fairly independently. Tech companies that do agency work for non-tech clients may or may not be a little bit like that.
But most tech companies are in a situation more comparable to pack hunters. A single lion can't take on a buffalo. It takes a coordinated effort by a group of lions. When the buffalo is down, there's a pecking order determining who gets to eat first. In case of food shortages, animals lower down the pecking order are in a difficult situation. They can starve to death in a large successful pack, or start taking on risks by going it alone or in packs that are too small. (If the group of predators is too small given the size of their chosen prey, then predators themselves might easily suffer injury). So competition for rank is to them a matter of survival.
Social behaviour among game animals fundamentally differs from social behaviour among pack hunters and it's all a function of the ecological niche they inhabit.
Similarly, law firms are organized very differently from tech companies and it's a function of their products / markets / business models / stakeholders / general situations.
...so I'd be very careful about the law firm analogy.
