Law Publishing Doom-Mongers, Self-Styled Heroes and Others

I have the impression, no more than that, and in no sense verifiable nor measurable, that among the eminent experts and commentators, there seems to exist a possibly small number of self-interested and obsessive nerds, primarily in North America, on the periphery of that part of the law publishing industry which actually has paying customers, who spend much of their time pretentiously telling us that the major players are about to go under and be overtaken by minnows. I understand that similar but different paranoia extends also to legal practice; it seems, to me at least, to be a baffling generational phenomenon and/or the prevailing power of “stupid”. As with some conspiracy theories, there may be a degree of truth and realism in them, but the successes consistently enjoyed by RELX, Thomson Reuters, Wolters Kluwer and others, with their massive and valuable databases of primary, secondary and importantly-related content, are not indicative of impending doom. Their continued growth and profitability show that they are exceptionally successful and, certainly their shareholders and senior directors, must, I imagine, be delighted. Thomson Reuters’ win in court against ROSS Intelligence, at least for the present, as a further appeal is allowed, amid its own recent developments and launch in support of its artificial intelligence initiatives, as with those of RELX and Wolters Kluwer, highlight the point forcefully.

In some cases, whatever doom-laden prediction is being peddled, that deep, wide and hugely successful legal information provision and solutions are being subsumed by blogging, or that a tiny, AI (possibly in name only) start-up is sounding the imminent death knell for the established giants, or that the proliferation of new entrants has some major collective effect, the purpose of the predictions are almost certainly just to eke out some visibility amid the crowded mess which exists. It is understandable why and how this is done, and it plays, possibly, to the requirements of private equity gamblers, who have much to gain or lose, so general scepticism about it might also be understandable.

Of course, law publishing, as it was known in the past, has been in steady decline for some time and it might be argued that, as a stand-alone business proposition, it is finished. The inevitability of consolidation to reduce costs and retain market share is recently in evidence in the business-to business sector of legal information, with the announcement of the merger of Law Business Research and ALM, both owned by private equity funds, although ALM’s business and finance division will be “carved out”, rebranded and retained by EagleTree Capital; the merger is the latest move in a convoluted process, over many years, of takeovers and mergers of these businesses. The opinion of Hugh Logue, of Outsell, is that “the LBR-ALM merger combines global scale with niche expertise, creating a powerful new platform that will reshape how legal professionals access, utilize, and integrate critical information across markets”. I wonder if it is truly so significant, or instead, somewhat desperate? Perhaps even more dramatic, if the information is correct, is that the market for legal directories is in sharp decline, although this has been predictable for a long time. However, that says little or nothing about the major parent corporations, whose ability to evolve, however clumsily, slowly and deviously, is impressive, hence their continued successes and growth. No doubt, as time goes on, they will acquire, amalgamate and dispose, as they assess themselves and their markets, but I imagine that they do not suffer much lack of sleep, in consequence. Indeed, their frequent and recent disposals and product closures probably in part underpin their financial successes and evolution.

What seems to me to be the case at present, is that the sector, be it considered to be about publishing, information provision technology, research, artificial intelligence, workflow solutions and/or whatever else, is in a state of flux and uncertainty, an effect of which is proliferation, short-termism, “suck it and see” strategy and, of course, litigation, as those concerned argue over the spoils. It resembles, in some ways, the automotive industry, both now and in the early years of the twentieth century, when new business and products were being launched daily, all with new claims, but only very few resulting in market acceptance, as the majority failed and were forgotten. I am certain that only a notable excellent few of the, as yet, unpronounceable electronic vehicle brands from China will succeed in Western markets, and the reasons for success and failure, when they come to be analysed historically, will be clear. I imagine that the same will be said of the legal information markets and its new and established participants, though some will realise their dreams by being acquired, rather than fail.

It should go without saying that innovation and risk-taking is laudable and the best of those who do it are to be praised. It is usually immensely difficult to enter new and existing markets, particularly those which are conservative and cautious in nature, notably the legal one. At the same time, there is no right to success and castigating customers for their incorrect attitudes, and established competitors for continuing to enjoy the benefits of their success is probably unwise. Customers do not want to be told that they are not quite good enough; the normal and established tradition is that they are told that they are always right.

It would be a relief to see and hear the boastful, immoderate and, to some, boring noise around artificial intelligence calmed down somewhat and to put it into perspective, although serious, unbiased and disinterested reviews of quality, functionality, service and value are almost always to be welcomed. Not every deal done, nor investment of seed money, nor technical tweak, nor exchange of opinion expressed in litigation, is interesting, important or life-altering. Life tells us about things that come and go, and that success and failure are rarely easy to interpret in simplistic ways. Depth, value and longevity might be considered to be better measures, as all the overtaken technologies, once-fascinating devices and tools of recent times tend to indicate. How we shall laugh and be embarrassed at the primitiveness and pointlessness of some of that which we applaud today, as present innovations find themselves abandoned alongside looseleaf services, laser disks, cassettes, cds, dvds and more, which the law market, in their time, embraced. The passage of time cannot and should not be reversed, and things invented cannot be un-invented, so mature and reasoned acceptance is, some might argue, the way forward, as we continue to learn, repair and replace that which is of now. As an example of recent disfunctionality, despite its impressive financial and technical gains over several years, the recent announcement that Wolters Kluwer’s CEO would be retiring a year thereafter, caused an immediate, illogical and significant drop (other reasons aside) in its share price. Inevitably, emotion and fear of the future can be powerful, however irrational, drivers of action, which can be observed everywhere.

Perhaps in contrast, or even competition, roll on the ever-escalating extent and value of artificial intelligence in diagnosis, treatment and cure in medical research and practice. That, surely, deserves to be limitless and unchallengeable. Of course, the innovation and initiatives in legal and related matters are inevitable and often valuable, but probably, unlike in medicine, the benefits are intended for the few rather than the many.