Sweet and Maxwell: Another Somewhat Lesser Historical Milestone

Sweet and Maxwell, part of Thomson Reuters and based in England, was founded in 1799; in 2024, 225 years of its existence can be marked and celebrated. For those with an interest in such matters, the book, “Then and Now” was published for its 175th birthday in 1974 and in 1999, 200 years saw the publication of “Now and Then” (not The Beatles’ version). Its present focus is, no doubt, on the future.

Perhaps two and a quarter centuries might not be considered to be sufficiently eye-catching to make it noteworthy, but I would disagree. In a volatile and “flash in the pan” world in which little is treasured and sustained and in which brands are simply catchy nametags that convey few brand values, Sweet and Maxwell and its genuine rivals exude the promises of quality, reliability and product content trustworthiness. Sweet and Maxwell and Butterworths, the latter having been born as recently as in 1818, at least to some extent, continue to use their historic names, despite Westlaw, Thomson Reuters, Lexis Nexis and RELX (the world’s largest publisher) and, certainly in their home markets, are still known by them to lawyers, law librarians and others. I would not significantly disagree with Sweet and Maxwell’s own current description of itself: “With over 200 years of history and heritage in legal publishing, Sweet & Maxwell offers detailed and specialist knowledge, understanding, interpretation and commentary across a wide range of subjects. Our publications use a variety of formats to meet customers’ needs including books, journals, eBooks, periodicals, looseleafs, eBooks and online services…..Sweet & Maxwell’s print catalogue is one of the most comprehensive and distinguished in the world today. Building on authoritative titles and brands such as The White Book, Archbold and IDS, while Westlaw UK and Practical Law are two of the world’s most trusted online legal resources.” The brand situation might, however, be different in the USA, where it seems, for example, that there are elements of West Publishing Company’s products that do not satisfy the characteristics of a “brand-name-or-equal” solicitation.

The partial retention of the Sweet and Maxwell imprint, primarily associated with its printed publications, is, in my view, commendable and yet somewhat surprising. The web address, www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk can still be searched, unlike, regrettably, one that is unique to and capable of identifying its competitor’s historic brand name; likewise, the Thomson Reuters/Westlaw equivalent publishers in Canada (Carswell), Australia (Law Book Co.) and New Zealand (Sweet & Maxwell NZ). Yet, Roundhall Press is still used in Ireland, linked to Sweet and Maxwell, similarly to W. Green, in Scotland and Sweet & Maxwell Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. While always associated with the Thomson Reuters, Westlaw and other related brands, it may be that Sweet and Maxwell resonates better in the home markets, as well as in many other Common Law jurisdictions, perhaps excluding the USA; I think that the brand may have served the market better than to introduce a range of other ones for adjacent media. I have no doubt that there will be those, in head offices and in PR departments, who long for global brands which will deliver their equivalents of Coca-Cola and Macdonald’s. In their own minds, and perhaps mistakenly, they might take the view that their only meaningful customers are gigantic international law firms. They might also be wise to employ a multiplicity of brand names to seek to distance their legal information output from some of their, arguably, less honourable business activities.

Law publishers do or should know that law, and the imposition if it, travels less well than some would like it to do, as the frequent ineffectiveness of international legal institutions, courts and tribunals often indicate. Pesky factors such as politics, language, legislation, caselaw and jurisprudential and procedural factors, rather get in the way of allowing legal information tools, media, platforms, as well as opportunities for artificial intelligence solutions to be rolled out globally, as Thomson Reuters and others are seeking to do. The shrinkage of law publishing ambition by Thomson Reuters, RELX and Wolters Kluwer in the complicated European and other legal markets, combined with their choices for investment, indicate the extent to which their focus on standardisation has resulted in sell-offs. Increasingly, for Wolters Kluwer, they now have to source legal content from others, in order to fill important gaps. Maybe hopefully, successors in the major publishers’ endeavours, such as Karnov and perhaps v-Lex Group, winner of the 2023 “Overall Legal Analytics Solution Of The Year”, by LegalTech Breakthrough, would appear to be more measured and thoughtful in their acquisitions and their content licensing deals in and beyond their home markets; crossing national borders, the use of the English language can be a unifying factor.

Yet, it is little wonder that Sweet and Maxwell has survived and flourished over 225 years. If the requirements to evolve and adapt are key to survival, it has done so consistently and more effectively that most of its rivals which have disappeared over the years and others for which that fate is inevitable. Sweet and Maxwell has taken an evolutionary approach, fastidiously nurturing its established products and services, pruning those which have not met their challenges, by steady, if not revolutionary innovation and by tactical and strategic acquisitions and sell-offs. Around the time that Sweet and Maxwell, whose historical motto was Lux Gentium Lex (not “soap for legal gentlemen”), as the jewel in the crown of its then parent company, was acquired in 1986 by what was then International Thomson Corporation, one of the key ITO executives justified the high price paid, commenting, “you only get one crack at this sort of opportunity….we were quite bold to offer the price we did…., but then Sweet & Maxwell was a great prize” (from Chapter 5 of British Book Publishing as a Business since the 1960s, by Eric de Bellaigue). It seems even to have withstood, with variable success, the effects of the decisions and occasional malice and madness of its two corporate owners over the years. If it finds itself in the hands of others in the future, as some have predicted, one might only hope for sanity.

In many respects, however, the signs are not good. Despite the residue of respect for the brand in Britain and Ireland, the finest authors and added-value products and services of legendary proportions, these are outbalanced by inevitable reduction in revenue and profitability, as the market steadily distances itself from its past, and what used to be a business in its own right becomes a departmental function. Inasmuch as future growth opportunities in markets emerge, it is unlikely that they will be to the benefit of legal information providers as we have known them. It is intriguing to read Hugh Logue of Outsell’s report that their latest research reveals significant and latent demand for legal information among non-legal professionals, presenting, it is suggested, a substantial opportunity for providers in the information sector. This is surprising, considering past withdrawals by, for example, Thomson Reuters/Sweet and Maxwell and Wolters Kluwer from this and business to business markets, although it is noted that legal rankings provider, Chambers and Partners, has been sold by a European private equity firm to a US one, in a deal to attract investor capital, for 4.5 times the price paid by the vendor. Some measurability of the size, scale and value of any such indicators would be interesting to see. Add to that, the fact is that innovation now is in the field of technology, including artificial intelligence, to a greater extent than in finding new added value-legal and related content. This is, probably, as the giant legal information providers already have enough legal content, and growth and profitability from them is not increasing, while at the same time, the smaller ones are constantly in search of commentary to add value to sources. Hence, their historical and heritage boasts might become less significant, whereas the technology ones are more commoditised, using size and market reach rather than quality, as competitive differentiators, in a rather grubbier and litigious business environment.

Still, for the interest and benefit of those who will be fortunate enough to be able to celebrate 250 years, and more, of Sweet and Maxwell, one might hope that such opportunities will exist, and that it will have the ability to evolve and remain relevant, in order to create its future, in whatever unforeseeable form that takes.