LAST WRITES? - Reassessing the Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by adawds

A scholarly article reexamines the history and future of the law review in the age of cyberspace. It traces how the genre emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and explains how three waves of criticism mirrored changing professional, pedagogical, and academic concerns. The author evaluates recent editorial reforms, online services, and electronic law journals, arguing that procedural and technological changes may leave core criticisms unresolved, and proposes self-publication by legal writers.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages74

Reading Time1 h 54 min

AccessFree to download

Article

INTRODUCTION:HAIL!—AND FAREWELL?

The law review as an “inevitable” institution

Origins and changing academic conditions

Cyberspace and scholarly communication

# ARTICLE LAST WRITES? REASSESSING THE LAW REVIEWIN THE AGE OF CYBERSPACE BERNARD J.HIBBITTS* Professor Hibbitts reassesses the history and future of the law review in ighut ofchanging technological and academic conditions.He analyzes why law reviews de-veloped in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and shows how threedifferent waves of criticism have reflected shifiting professorial,professional,andpedagogical concerns about the genre.Recent editorial reforms and the inaugura-tion of on-line services and electronic law journals appear to solve some of the lawreview's traditional problems,but Professor Hibbitts suggests that these proceduraland technological modifcations leave the basic criticisms of the law review systemunmet.In this context,Professor Hibbits proposes that legal writers self-publish *Professor of Law,University of Pittsburgh.B.A.(Juris.),1983,Oxford University;LL.B.,1984,Dalhousie University;LL.M.,1986,University of Toronto;LLM.,1988,Harvard Law School.E-mail:;Web page:.I am especially grateful to Welsh White,Anthony D'Amato,Brian Doyle,Robert Hamilton,Mark Ramseyer,Gary Rosin,and Paul Ginsparg for their written com-ments on previous versions of this Article.William Curley made many invaluable contribu-tions to the piece as my research assistant.Responsibility for the views contained herein一as well as for any mistakes or errors of interpretation—is,of course,mine alone. This printed document is a slightly revised and more heavily annotated version ofBernard J.Hibbitts,Last Writes?Re-assessing the Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace,Version 1.0,first posted on the World Wide Web on February 5,1996 and currentlyarchived at.In printed form,the Article nec-essarily lacks the hypertext and multimedia enhancements of its electronic original andappears here without its supporting structure,which included a direct e-mail line to theauthor,a collection of e-mailed reader comments together with the author's responses tothe same,a“counter”and weekly summary of reader downloads,and connections to re-lated sites mentioning or featuring the Article as a hypertext “link”. Extended solicited commentary on Version 1.0 of Last Writes?(with my response)may be found in print in volume 29 of the Akron Law Review(Special Issue,forthcoming1996)and will shortly be accessible on the World Wide Web via the Akron Law Review'sweb site,.The latest electronic version of LastWrites?itself(at this printing,Version 1.1)is now available on the Web at . I cannot end this note without giving due credit to the members of the Editorial Boardof the New York University Law Review,and especially to Senior Articles Editor VictorHou and Articles Editor Deborah Levi.In every stage of the selection and editorial pro-cess,they conducted themselves in a highly considerate,cooperative,pleasant,and profes-sional fashion,upholding what is best(if,according to many accounts,not universal)in thelaw review tradition.They reacted to the message of this Article with grace,interest,andeven enthusiasm,despite the depth of the challenge it posed to the legitimacy and future oftheir formal roles.Whether or not the law review ultimately perishes as an institution inthe age of cyberspace,this may have been its finest hour. on the World Wide Web,as he did in a previous version of this Article.This stral-egy,Professor Hibbitts argues,would give legal writers more control over the sub-stance and form of their scholarship,would create more opportunites forspontaneity and creativity,and would promote more direct dialogue among legalthinkers.It would also sound the death knell for law reviews in their presentform.** # INTRODUCTION:HAIL!—AND FAREWELL? The next decade could witness the end of the law review as weknow it. At first glance,this contention might

FAQs

Why does the article argue that the law review could end in the next decade?

It links the potential demise of law reviews to changing academic circumstances and dissatisfaction with student-edited journals, combined with new computer-mediated communications technologies.

How does the article describe the law review’s origins?

It explains that law reviews emerged from a fortuitous interaction of academic circumstances and improvements in publishing technology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

What solutions does the author evaluate, and what conclusion does the author reach?

The author assesses editorial reforms and the rise of online services and electronic law journals, but suggests these changes may not resolve the basic criticisms of the law review system.

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by adawds