How do I assess the quality of the podcasts?
What I can say is that from my own experience of being interviewed, Charon was a very kind host who made a lot of effort to put me at ease and he showed a professional approach...he was really committed to get everything right about the interview.
With respect to the interview with Tim Kevan, Chraon asked good questions about blogging and Tim explained the liberating nature of blogging. Tim also gave revealing information about the balance of his blog between the law and other issues.
Tim is quite innovative(and for me an inspiration with his business flair) and he has co-founded a company creating webinars. He is quite right about the significance of blogging and how radical this is as a medium. I agree that blogging can really help a lawyer raise his or her profile.
The interview with Dan Hull is slower in tone which may reflect Dan's nature and again Charon explores the rationale behind blogging and also Dan's emphasis on client service. Consideration is given to workplace/balance which Dan gives robust views on which has attracted lively comment on Charon's blog.
Where Charon's strength lies in his interest in people. He is genuinely interested in his guests and finding out what makes them tick. Combine that with great editing skill and commitment (He took an assistant to Mayfair, London to ensure the quality of the content for the Dan Hull interview), you have a model for success.
Recommendations? As I know Charon himself recognises, the interviews with lawyers have focused on blogging and this will change. It would be desirable to see this evolve and to have broader discussions with guests on other legal issues. Certainly I can see Charon's podcasts becoming the key audio content within the UK legal profession. No mean feat.