In all of my dealings with many law students online and otherwise, I've seen virtually no difference in the education. Of course there are differences in the opportunities available...but nobody is denying that. However, for one who goes into DL with their eyes wide open, understanding the career limitations and understanding the prejudices that will be there for them when they exit the other side, degree in hand...and they decide to do it despite all of this because they know why they are doing it...more power to you.
I suppose a student's success would be determined by the type of person he/she really is. I would guess that many of the B.M. (brick and mortar) law students are very social people who could not make it through law school without the social aspect of gathering with other students. The DL law schools are probably not geared for moot court, although the students would have the option of observing at as many actual trials as is convenient.
I would think that there are prejudices no matter what law school a lawyer graduates from. If it is a DL school, it has the DL law school stigma. If it is not a high rated law school, it has the low level law school stigma. If it is a high rated law school, then it is an argument about who went to the better undergrad school, whose scores were better, who had the better professors, which graduating class is better, etc.
It almost seems that unless one student shares a totally identical experience with another student, no one would recognize the qualifications of another as "adequate."