After years in major law firms and in-house legal teams, Björn Benckert saw an opportunity to rethink how corporate M&A law is delivered. Instead of the traditional, process-heavy model, he believed legal advisors could operate with greater commercial awareness and client focus.
He co-founded Avery Law, a boutique firm focused on delivering client-centered advice for complex M&A transactions. In this interview, he discusses his career journey, standout deals, and how AI is influencing legal work.
Q: Can you share an overview of your background and how you founded Avery Law?
I started my career at major law firms, training at Norton Rose Fulbright and then moving to Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, a large American firm that specializes in M&A. After that, I worked in-house for a family office, where I met my co-founder, David Turney.
We saw an opportunity to create something different in the M&A space. We wanted a firm that combined the rigor of large organizations with the client orientation and commercial focus found in-house. That led to the founding of Avery Law.
Since 2012, we’ve focused on corporate opportunities, particularly M&A and equity fundraising, while also offering full-service corporate support including IP, data protection, and employment services.
We’ve been operating for more than a decade and it’s only getting busier. It’s very much a relationship-driven business: the more deals you do, the more people you meet, which naturally leads to new opportunities.
Q: Avery Law “challenges how law firms operate”. What does that mean?
Coming from an in-house perspective, we saw that large firms can sometimes be bureaucratic and process-driven. That approach is not inherently wrong, but it is not always aligned with what clients – particularly founders and tech companies – need in fast-moving, commercially-driven transactions.
At Avery Law, we aim to provide a practical, client-focused approach. Our goal is to ensure that legal advice supports the client’s commercial objectives, rather than the other way around. This philosophy has resonated strongly with our clients.
Q: Are there standout deals in your career that have influenced your firm’s approach?
One deal that comes to mind was an enforcement transaction that lasted over a year and a half. Many risk-averse institutions were involved, and personnel changes on the client side added complexity. Toward the end, it really felt like the lawyers were running the deal, rather than supporting the client.
The key takeaway for me is that lawyers should advise, not manage deals. Transactions must be client-driven, with legal teams guiding on risks and solutions. That principle underpins how we operate at Avery Law.
Q: How do you establish the balance between legal guidance and commercial decision-making?
It all comes down to communication. Each client and transaction is different, but fundamentally, we aim to place legal risks in the right commercial context. Lawyers cannot let theoretical risks overshadow the deal’s objectives.
Our role is to provide clear guidance, highlight potential issues, and ensure the client understands the implications. Ultimately, the client makes the decisions. Perfect legal documents are not the goal; achieving a commercially viable deal is.
Q: Avery Law focuses on high-growth tech companies. What led to this specialization?
We’re drawn to the speed and focus of deals in this sector. Tech transactions often have compressed timelines and use more standard documentation than traditional deals. Due diligence emphasizes IP, data protection, and cybersecurity, rather than regulatory matters.
Investors in tech also tend to have a higher risk appetite. They expect some failures and know that the successes will make up for them. The pace, risk tolerance, and focus on strategic value make tech M&A very different from other sectors and, in my view, more exciting.
Q: Have you encountered challenges around valuations, particularly in AI-focused businesses?
Valuations in tech, and AI in particular, can be complex. We’re all hearing about the so-called “AI bubble.” Market cycles and hype can push valuations higher.
My role is not to judge whether a company is worth a certain price. Clients make those decisions. Our responsibility is to ensure the numbers are accurate and the legal documentation is robust, leaving the commercial judgment to the client.
Q: Is AI being used within your firm?
We’re starting to use AI, primarily as a tool to increase efficiency. We apply it to document review, summarizing materials, and other administrative tasks. It helps trainees and junior lawyers work more efficiently but doesn’t replace judgment or client-facing work. That always requires experience and context.
In developed jurisdictions, AI can provide useful research and initial guidance. In less developed regions, its application is limited. Dealmaking often relies on personal negotiation skills and local knowledge, especially where regulations are not well codified or vary significantly.
Q: What other trends are you focused on and are you optimistic heading into 2026?
Cross-border deals are becoming more complex due to regulatory compliance, sanctions, and rules such as the UK National Security and Investment Act. We’re also seeing opportunities arising from distressed assets and consolidation in certain sectors. For small and mid-market deals, these trends create openings for strategic acquisitions and growth.
In our segment, small and mid-market activity remains strong. Even if large-scale M&A slows, the demand for practical, client-focused legal advice is steady. Our size and focus allow us to stay flexible and ready to adapt as the market evolves.
