Representation v Regulation

It always bothered me thet the Law Societies had (have) the power to regulation the profession. It just does not sound right. Somehow (and I didn't before realise why) it always reminded me of Animal Farm. How can regulation ever be impartian, independant and reasonable if the profession regulate itself. A very clever young lawyer from Durban pointed me in the right direction by explaining the difference between regulation and representation. The Law Societies represent (and so they should) the members of the profession. But regulate... wait a second. The Law Society rules in general fail to appreciate the very important distinction between regulation and representation. Although is may be true that the Law Societies represent the legal profession, it is simply not correct to assume that they should also regulate the profession. It is a well accepted international norm that representation and regulation are and should be two very different functions and rules. Within the legal profession, these rules and functions are confused and the representative body is also the regulatory authority. Imagine of Vodacom, Cell C and MTN jointly regulated mobile communications! Thankfully and correctly so, mobile communications is regulated by ICASA, an independent statutory authority. Imagine if a group of liquor store owners replaced the Liquor Board? Imagine if cabinet replaced the Constitutional Court?