Meanwhile, Law Publishing Life Goes On

The often-blurred lines, as among legal information publishing, legal information technology, legal research tools and beyond, certainly give the impression that the only serious moving and shaking is that which focuses on artificial intelligence, though perhaps almost exclusively at the top end of the legal practice market. It would be safe to suggest, however, that even if law publishing activity is not as we have known it in the past, reports of its death may have been somewhat exaggerated. In recent times, my attention has been grabbed by online soliciting from UK law publishers, among them, for example, Law Brief Publishing and i-Law, for submission of new publication proposals from prospective authors. This might be an indication, perhaps, that demand is exceeding supply, as publishers’ output does not match customer requirements, while the clients of lawyers are not necessarily clamouring for change, and/or that there may yet be untapped market opportunities. Print is more likely to be killed off by price gouging, combined with actions which appear to be purposely intended to increase production costs, and therefore prices, by the publishers, rather than by technology.

I recall, wryly, around a quarter of a century ago, being advised by an accountant in professional publishing, who had a degree of authority but only little knowledge about any aspect of that trade and its markets, that it was time to stop publishing printed volumes, as their time had allegedly passed. That might just have been in a year in which print-related revenues and profits were at an all-time high. The advice was, of course, ignored, and a further generation has passed, with law, tax and professional treatises, other books and periodicals still being published successfully and, some might say, occasionally with the potential to save us all from destruction. The lesson learned is that any fool can predict almost anything, and maybe even by chance be correct, eventually, so long as accurate time frames, financial calculations, performance indicators and every other measurable metric are conveniently ignored. Other than the near certainty that Musk will not die in penury and that Trump will probably not live out what is left of his wasted life in personal dedication to reading, contemplation and self-sacrifice, I can predict almost nothing.

Unquestionably, stories of major and high value mergers and acquisitions, as well as content licensing deals in this market, narrowly viewed, have not been numerous or shocking in their importance and extent, of late, but nor have they been entirely absent, and some may turn out to have great significance. Meanwhile, much of the effort seems to put into market participants suing one another.

Probably the most prominent, though not directly and overtly falling into the category of law publishing, is Clio’s acquisition of Jurisage, whose database covers more than 470,000 Canadian cases; content acquisition remains a critical factor in achieving credibility and success. The objective here is to use the Jurisage acquisition to power Clio Work. Clearly, the huge investment being poured into Clio is being put to use and the results will be seen over time. Still, one has to wonder at what are the true reactions to this, and to similar events, at the headquarters of the market leaders, RELX, Wolters Kluwer and Thomson Reuters. The last of these three is a notably Canadian-based international company, still and endlessly arguing in court with ROSS Intelligence about the alleged misuse of 25,000 of its headnotes. The managements and shareholders of all of them can hardly be amused at the effect on their now-diminished market valuations, as AI deals proliferate around and below them.

Bloomberg Industry Group, within which sits Bloomberg Law, has taken over Regology, a US-based AI-powered regulatory intelligence platform. The acquisition is intended to grow Bloomberg Industry Group’s range of law, tax, and government affairs primary sources, analysis, and editorial coverage by integrating AI-driven regulatory change management capabilities. Regology was founded as recently as in 2017 and was, until the sale, backed primarily by venture capitalists. I am sure that such benefits or effects that might derive from this transaction will be experienced primarily in the USA.

Simultaneously, across the ocean, in Korea, Law&Company has signed a 10-year exclusive supply contract for legal book content with Park Youngsa, Korea’s leading legal publishing house, to advance legal artificial intelligence development. The imperative of the need to source good legal content for legal technology purposes is everywhere.

One almost exclusively publishing deal is that of the acquisition, by Wiley, of Emerald Publishing, the price paid being US$452m. Wiley is a significant scholarly publisher in the USA with a portfolio of print and electronic books and journals touching on law. Many years ago, in the UK, it acquired Chancery Law Publishing from Bloomsbury Publishing, but its efforts in the UK and European legal markets were not successful, as they were not while under Bloomsbury, and it exited, no longer publishing specifically for Irish and British law students and practitioners. Nevertheless, I believe that the now-dormant company, Chancery Law Publishing, is still owned by Wiley. As for Emerald, it has a small portfolio of legal publications, including journals and its Studies in Law, Politics and Society series of books. I do know that, certainly in the latter part of 2025, Emerald was open to the idea of commissioning new titles comprising law content, within its business, economics and finance portfolio. In the past, both publishers made agreements with vLex to license the latter with legal content derived from their publications. Even combined, I doubt if the two will make much more of an impression in legal markets, unless there is some strategic imperative and specific action taken so to do. However, Kate Worlock, of Outsell, writes that the acquisition signals a subscription model comeback, and raises urgent questions for libraries, societies, and anyone in the AI content economy.

Yet, possibly, for some, the most fascinating and telling event is the announcement that, subject to regulatory approval, Thomson Reuters has agreed to sell a 51% stake in its global print business to the investment firm, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR), owner of, inter alia, Simon and Schuster, for $500m. Of course, all sorts of caveats are included in the deal, but it certainly indicates the longer-term direction of Thomson Reuters as a business and its, more or less, definitive intention to quit that aspect of its overall activities. As to what are the plans and motivation of KKR, they remain to be seen. Apparently, they describe the global print unit as a “gold standard” in printed reference materials and see potential for it to thrive as a standalone business, which might suggest a further sell-off before too long. It is no less an authority than RELX’s chief communications officer who warns of the perils of “relying on incredibly fickle VC investors”. The sale, ironically, can be seen in contract to RELX (Lexis Nexis) acquiring England’s small and largely print-based Globe Law and Business, though I imagine, but might be wrong, that the deal is more of a favour than a strategic purchase.