Report comment

A link to the actual statement or submissions setting out the Law Society's argument would be helpful. As it is, the article seems to contradict itself:

"Fraud may occur, regrettably, even where solicitors on *both* sides have been scrupulous in complying with all due diligence requirements and best practice. ‘Where a solicitor has carried out his or her duties in full compliance with those requirements, we do not believe they should bear the loss on behalf of a defrauded purchaser,’ he said." (emphasis added)

That doesn't sit well with: "[The LS] wants to argue it would be preferable for the loss to lie with the lawyer acting on behalf of the fraudster, because they are in a better position to detect a problem."

I would sincerely hope that the Law Society is not giving any credence at all to the view that the solicitor acting on behalf of the fraudster should be liable even if they have been "scrupulous" in complying with due diligence and other requirements, but that's the implication.