I can honestly say that I never encountered a law professor who appeared to care more for the object of their study than their own personal social standing. And I was looking rather closely.
That rule obtains in the academy generally -- the exceptions whom I've encountered have almost invariably been in philosophy or the arts.
To be clear, I studied the arts to practice the arts, then found things in the field to be a bit off-target, to use the mildest possible phrase. Then I studied law to practice law, and found the practice of law to be, with similar discretion, a bit corrupt. When, finally, I turned to the academy, it was largely animated by a sense that it was the source of the fact that ideas were no longer guiding things. It would have worked, but as it turns out, if you don't think that there is any truth to be found in the objects of study, there's apparently no need to preserve basic truth and honesty in the interpersonal world. At the end of it, I was basically trying to play baseball in the middle of a fistfight.
Onward. The old texts are still available, and they speak. There's also the possibility of making art at some point in the future, and if I ever find a path past the gates of the law, I'd be able to use those ideas to explain a few things.