Why Don't Economists Read the Legal Literature?

When I read economics articles, I'm often struck by the absence of citations to the legal literature. Citations to legal works, even when very much on point, are frequently missing from literature reviews and citation lists. There are exceptions to be sure.  Some notable articles and scholars are cited routinely, and I've also noticed that economists will cite articles in some of the law & economics journals (like JLE and JLEO), but then economists also publish in those journals. This contrasts with the legal literature, which frequently cites to the economics literature. I'm curious what might explain this phenomenon.  

Here are some non-exclusive possible explanations (in no particular order); I'm interested in hearing readers thoughts:

• Lack of access to the literature.  The legal literature is available via Lexis and Westlaw, which economists don't have access to.  I'd think there'd be greater access to Hein and to JStore, which has some legal articles (including JLE). Ultimately, I find this argument less than compelling in the age of SSRN. 

• Long articles + lack of attention span. Legal articles tend to be much longer than economics articles. I'm certainly guilty of this. The article length problem is in part because of student editors. While student editors complain about length, they demand inane levels of footnoting and articles have to be written with a fair amount of background so that they can be understood by non-expert student editors. All of that adds length. So the articles are long. But I don't think of economists as a group with preternaturally short attention spans, and in any event it's pretty easy to figure out how to skip over the background sections and suck out the marrow from most law review articles.

• Discomfort with methods and normativity.  Economists like formal models and experiments. Those forms of scholarship are not the norm in the legal literature; law isn't a social science. (But as the result of that footnote obsession, we tend to document our sources far better!) One of the great virtues of legal scholarship is its strong normative bent, which is so taboo to many social scientists.  (This is not to contest that we have seen a move over the past generation to make law and judging in particular, more "scientific.") Perhaps this leads economists to eschew the legal literature in general.

• Disciplinary hubris. Perhaps economists simply think that there isn't anything to learn from legal scholarship. It's certainly easier to think of disciplinarily hubristic economists than say sociologists or anthropologists or historians who are hubristic about their disciplines. The other way of presenting this argument is just that legal scholarship isn't very good, so why bother to engage with it. It's hard to argue this point conclusively, but I'd say that as with the scholarship in any field, there's good and bad legal scholarship, and the existence of shoddy work isn't an excuse for ignoring the meritorious work. 

I don't find any of these explanations very satisfactory. Maybe I'm overlooking something big and obvious. Thoughts?