My measure of depth is often the extent to which description of the bar fully appreciates the current deep association between the authority of law and the academy. Rhode notes the move from apprenticeships and an authority derived from practice to increasing reliance on academic authority. However, her treatment does not provide enough real history or inquiry to take account of the monumental nature of this shift. Law's association with the academy seems to be essential in providing law and lawyers with their most compelling responses to criticism. Academic analysis and scholarship is one of the sources of professional self-consciousness.
Law rooted in the academy is surely a different institution than law grounded primarily in practice.
This makes the critique of relevance seem a little beside the point. There is also a considerable amount of dichotomized thinking in Rhode's book, particularly when she describes the terrain she would reform. The framework becomes more complex when solutions are proposed. This is a sign of conscientiousness on the part of the author. Greater complexity, however, is an impediment to change and the suggested solutions here might be stated more boldly.