“…Kim’s argument is not just a rehashing of history’s endless binary of continuity and change (for discussion of this binary see e.g. Breisach, 2007: 3; Desautels-Stein, 2015: 41; Fernandez, 2012: 448; Smith and McLaren, 2001: 312); rather, it is a devastating account of how significant change can seem like continuity (and it should be noted that the inverse is true as well; Hamill, 2016; Valverde, 2012: 164) and thus pass unnoticed until it is far too late. Kim’s study manages both to situate the law, insofar as we grasp why this change happened, and to observe the law and, the lawyers, as this change took place.…”