David A. Rier


In Part I of this paper, I will review the essentials of Hibbitts's discussion, and his argument that electronic self-publication of legal scholarship soon willand shouldreplace the edited, printed law review as we know it today. In Part II, I apply sociological analysis to explore some special features of the audience for and functions of legal scholarship. I will build upon this discussion in Part III, which explains why legal scholarship is a poor candidate for electronic self-publication, and why self-publication is a poor use of the Internet's potential for scholarly communication. In the concluding Part IV, I outline some counter-proposals for improving legal scholarship and scholarly communication in light of new dissemination technologies.