However, in Patel v Daybells [2001] 32 EG 87 (CS), the italicised words were held not to apply to the practice you mention. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that expert bodies had weighed up the comparative risks and benefits of the practice and had reached “a defensible conclusion”. The defendant solicitor (who was not shown to be careless in any other respect) was accordingly exonerated.
For background reading, see
Q A purchaser’s solicitor, who is required to remit a large part of the purchase price to the vendor’s mortgagee, pays the entire price to the vendor’s solicitor against an undertaking, in the Law Society’s recommended form, that existing mortgages will be discharged. The undertaking is dishonoured. Can the purchaser’s solicitor be held responsible even though he acted in accordance with the general practice of the profession?
A The adoption by a solicitor of a widely accepted professional practice affords him no defence if the practice exposes the client to a foreseeable and avoidable risk and is not capable of being defended on rational grounds.
However, in Patel v Daybells [2001] 32 EG 87 (CS), the italicised words were held not to apply to the practice you mention. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that expert bodies had weighed up the comparative risks and benefits of the practice and had reached “a defensible conclusion”. The defendant solicitor (who was not shown to be careless in any other respect) was accordingly exonerated.
For background reading, see Trust me, I’m a lawyer Estates Gazette 14 October 2000, p203 (Mark Shelton, of Theodore Goddard).
