Most of his legal analysis comes in the form of his live play-by-play commentary on ongoing trials. And for that, you really don't need anything much more than an understanding of the rules of evidence and procedure for the relevant jurisdiction. So in that regard, his background is more than adequate and his legal analysis is fine.

He rarely covers other stuff, like major SCOTUS decisions, and for those I would agree with you on taking his analysis on those with a grain of salt.