You may have seen that the Law Society, under the stewardship of new chief executive Catherine Dixon, has launched a discussion on how the society needs to change to support the profession in the post Legal Services Act, legal aid cuts and new technology world.

Though it's the kind of thing the Law Society always says anyway, it's a worthwhile enough exercise. It can, of course, expect plenty of solicitors to use the opportunity to express their view of just how useless they consider Chancery Lane to be - the entertaining below-the-line comments on Ms Dixon's article in the Gazette give a good flavour.

But as a Law Society watcher, it is a worry that there is no suggestion in any of the blurb around the initiative that the society's own internal governance structure is on the agenda.

There is the 100-member council, which costs the profession several hundred thousand pounds a year (last year's annual report does not seek to put a figure on it, unfortunately) but whose importance/purpose remains dubious given it no longer has a direct regulatory role beyond overseeing the SRA.

The issue of reducing the size of the council to something manageable has been on the agenda at various points in the last 20 years, but has invariably gone nowhere.

I wouldn't wish the experience of sitting in on council debates over governance reform on my worst enemy - the standard contribution is "Yes, I agree we should have a smaller council, but as it happens there are good reasons why my seat should not be abolished".

Also unsurprising is the absence of any mention about whether solicitors should still be compelled to fund much of the Law Society's non-regulatory work through practising fees.

We may be in an era where union members in other fields are being freed of such an obligation, but it is the subject that dare not speak its name at Chancery Lane, because the whole model would then collapse.