Academic Safe Haven for Irwin Law?

The news, from a distance, that the assets of Canada’s Irwin Law publishing business have been sold is nevertheless interesting and, one might hope, a positive step that will allow its portfolio to be developed in concert with that of the asset acquirer, the renowned University of Toronto Press. It is also hoped that the vendors have the same sense of satisfaction as my fellow owners and I had, at Dunedin Academic Press, having recently passed its assets to Liverpool University Press, and that the customer bases of and suppliers to both Irwin and UTP are the beneficiaries of the transaction. It is satisfying, perhaps because of its modest size, that Irwin has not fallen into the hands of venture capitalists.

Irwin Law was established in 1996 and initially was affiliated with the Stoddart Publishing Group, the latter of which collapsed in 2002. In 1999, Irwin Law was purchased by Quicklaw, but when that was acquired by LexisNexis in 2002, Irwin Law was repurchased by a group led by Irwin Law’s founding publisher, Jeffrey Miller. That period, around 1996-2002, may have been a disruptive one for Irwin but its legal information publishing activities have survived until recently, and changes, perhaps protective ones, have occurred. In 2019, Irwin Law launched Delve Books, a trade imprint which seeks to provide analysis into laws and law cases that have particular relevance to Canadian society. Irwin also served as the North American agent for The Federation Press, an independent Australian legal information publisher. Perhaps most importantly, in 2021, vLex agreed to collaborate with, and acquire a minority shareholding in Irwin Law, allowing the investor to provide a collection of Irwin Law’s books and journals to its customers. Information issued does not indicate what effect the asset purchase has on Delve Books, The Federation Press, the relationship with vLex, any components not included in the asset sale, and, of course, employees and/or freelancers. V-Lex itself has been rumoured to be a venture capital-backed acquisition target for Harvey.ai, apparently in order to use v-Lex to “train” Harvey.

Despite the positive and optimistic comments by both UTP and Irwin, only time will tell if the arrangement will be proven to be successful; the rest is speculation. At one level, it is difficult not to be sceptical and pessimistic on the news that a small Canadian legal information publisher carrying its own particular baggage will succeed in a university press environment, even one which does produce a modest portfolio of legal information publications. However, UTP’s focus has been on what might be considered to be the academic periphery of legal scholarship, in areas such as constitutional, indigenous and international law, legal history, philosophy of law, criminology and suchlike. Irwin’s portfolio is much broader, though not in all cases strategically aimed at university audiences and, perhaps, it has tried to stretch its competencies and credibility too far in terms of market appeal. Arguably, of course, this might be what UTP has envied, including Irwin’s E-library, peer-reviewed portfolio and capabilities. My instincts, no more than that, lead me to think that such a combination is a challenge in commercial terms, which may not be a significant issue for University of Toronto Press, whose total existing portfolio has substantial breadth and depth. Yet, no doubt, a priority will be on sustaining quality standards appropriate to target markets, as well as other factors which would be appropriate for a greatly respected university press.

Conversely, to the extent that Irwin Law had a competitive reputation in practitioner and similar markets, this might become diminished. That is not to suggest that a university press cannot serve non-university markets, for clearly many of them do. However, their ambitions, it seems to me, need to be at the elusive, lucrative and enviable top end of the legal market where the need for scholarship and quality have few limits and where price is not a significant constraint. The markets will decide, in the context of formidable existing and established competition, if a small acquisition of publishing assets can deliver optimally. The challenge of meeting all the necessary market satisfaction criteria is great in an ever more hostile competitive environment. It might be argued that it makes somewhat more sense for university presses to free themselves of publishing commitments that are not measurably targeted on core markets and leave it to the commercial operators to battle it out competitively. Many of them have legal information publishing assets which are envied by their commercial rivals and for which they are sometimes obliged to seek licenses, and might thrive better in that world.

The Canadian academic and practitioner legal information and solutions markets are as developed and sophisticated as any in the world, meaning that, whether or not we are in “the final agonising death throes of legal publishing at the hands of the moneymen”, creating and delivering analytical, learned, high-quality contented is a more sophisticated exercise than it was in the past. Competition is fierce and from varied and often surprising directions, yet the risk of failure is high. That said, Irwin Law has not survived good and bad times since 1996 by accident, and the reputation of University of Toronto Press, after nearly 125 years, rather speaks for itself. One factor perhaps for continued success is committed people who are highly competent and who care greatly about their tasks in hand. No doubt they are ready for the next phase of this story.

One might wonder, as I have been advised has been happening in mainland Europe, if any trend is increasing in university presses and perhaps even other not-dissimilar respected bodies mopping up legal information publishers to help satisfy the needs of their audiences; yet I very much doubt it. Still, if it were the case, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and more than twenty others would have little difficulty in identifying suitable targets in Britain, to enhance existing presence or acquire a new one in law. No doubt the same would apply in North America, throughout Europe and in other regions in which there are opportunities for consolidation.

Meanwhile, as the acquisition by Lexis Nexis of Belgium-based Henchman is completed, the purpose being to advance the position of both in the field of generative artificial intelligence, it emerges that London-based Informa, a publisher of a substantial range of scholarly law publications, has also been taking steps in AI. It is reported that Taylor & Francis, Informa’s academic publishing business unit which owns Routledge, has surprised many of its authors by selling access to their research, for around £8m, to Microsoft AI, without seeking permission from, and being specific about financial benefits to authors. With another deal of a similar kind, income generated is said to be about £58m in 2024; clearly, Informa has to be able stump up £1.16bn for its purchase of Ascential. Maybe the T&F authors will be inspired by the response of the New York Times on related matters. This, along with some of the negative aspects for academic authors of open access, is likely to give further cause for anxiety.

Another thought is that perhaps it is time for Informa, having made a large new acquisition in its core business to business territory, to step away from its publishing activities, find a buyer, though certainly not a university press, for its high margin but low growth cash cow, Taylor & Francis, and leave commercial academic publishing to commercial academic publishers. Of course, the potential loss of steady publishing subscription revenues might be a disincentive for that.