For lovers of reviews of legal regulation, these are truly glorious days. With the Legal Services Board (LSB) today kicking off its review of the independence of the profession's regulatory bodies, we now have our sixth review of regulation either recently finished or ongoing (this doesn't include the barrage of consultations issued by the Bar Council and Bar Standards Board which are surely too much to ask even the most dedicated scribe to keep up with).

Who would have thought the subject, widely ignored despite constant grumbling from most sections of the profession and public for years, would become so popular. And the Road to Damascus award for new-found enthusiasm for debating reform goes to the Law Society. This is a body that gave the issue such priority, it took more than five years to update its own code of conduct, and yet has been responsible for commissioning not one but two of the reviews (by Nicholas Smedley and Lord Hunt).

But at least the LSB has the novelty of being the body that is actually supposed to be in charge of this stuff. In addition, this process is a logical extension of the Legal Services Act's implementation, since the LSB is primarily concerned with fleshing out the muscle on the act's bones. In essence, the body is aiming to detail how "ring-fencing" of regulation and representative functions within approved front-line regulators like the Law Society should work in practice.

Early indications are that the LSB is aiming to have rigorous process that would limit, for example, the ability of the Law Society to influence its regulatory stable-mate, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) through control of back-office functions or budgets (an issue which has troubled the SRA).

There are other processes floated, memorably dubbed "dual self-certification", which would require the Law Society and SRA to sign off on achieving independence in conjunction with the LSB. The LSB also proposes a fairly prescriptive regime to assess the use and requested rises in membership fees levied by front-line regulators, which could limit rises in the practising certificate in future.

Though the LSB goes out of its way to stress its hopes for a constructive approach, on first glance some of this looks uncomfortable reading for the Law Society. In recent months the society has shown signs of regretting its generosity in handing over powers to the SRA several years back, a move made out of fear that it would have reform forced on it if it failed to put it own house in order.

Moving to reopen the debate on regulation by launching reviews ahead of the LSB's launch was surely designed to re-establish its influence over the wider regulatory framework. Perhaps Chancery Lane will in the fullness of time make a compelling case that it should have a stronger role in this regard. But in the meantime, the society, and other self-appointed reviewers of regulation, should instead focus on participating in the main event rather than striking out on their own.