In my view, law reviews are easy to criticize because they are a strange hybrid. They purport to serve two audiences at once — both legal academics and the bench and bar. Their hybrid status satisfies no one. If you think law reviews should be written for judges and practicing lawyers, then they are terrible because they generally are not relevant to the practice of law or the kinds of issues that judges regularly encounter. On the other hand, if you think law reviews should be written for academics, then law reviews are terrible because law student editors are not subject matter experts and can’t adequately spot top academic work. Both of these critiques are entirely fair within their assumptions. If you pick your audience, you have your critique. But they are also in tension with each other. For example, those who criticize law reviews for their lack of real-world impact may want to think twice about the role of students in the process. As between student editors and faculty editors, student editors are probably more interested in real-world impact and accessible writing than are elite academics. As a whole, the knowledge that student editors will be selecting articles probably pressures legal academics to write scholarship that is more easily understood by lawyers and that has more real-world relevance and impact than they would if the journals were all edited by professors. This doesn’t mean that the status quo is the best alternative, of course. But it does mean that you need to start by defining your audience, and then consider what works best for the audience(s) you have in mind.
He also makes a couple of other good points. In the interests of full and fair disclosure, I'm just cranky because a law review that promised to publish a time sensitive article no later than April 2013 still has not published the damned thing. Pretty soon, I may have to start naming and shaming.