also Kumon, 1995) has tended to mean a plethora of separate faculty or institute libraries fiercely guarded by their own librarians, cataloguing systems, and so on. Visitors to German law schools may have had even more exasperating experiences, for there most full professors (or occasionally a consortium of a few of them) maintain separate collections which are even more difficult to access. Such gatekeeping will become increasingly meaningless over the coming decades, as digital technology develops. This should encourage more interdisciplinary study, and reduce outmoded notions of specialist `professionalism' premissed on controlling information (Katsh, 1995: 178-81; Arthurs, 1998). As the volume of material available and linked electronically grows, however, the risk increases of people becoming `lost in cyberspace'. To prevent this, software to search effectively through this material will need to be developed, as Susskind and others expect by 2020. Law schools will also face difficult choices about when and how to replace print based media with electronic media, in terms of both relative cost and the risk of titles subsequently being deleted from electronic sources; whether to charge for some facilities, given that it will probably become technologically very difficult to restrict access but easier to control it; and whether basic print literacy is to remain a priority for law libraries (Buschmann, 1997). Law libraries are already being transformed by this (Berring, 1997), along with the myths sustaining or enveloping them (such as that of the heroic autodidact), which arguably also underpin certain substantive law doctrines (such as the