Thanks, Rob, your reply certainly puts some perspective on the matter.
I am still worried however by the term "believes" in 17.2.1: in other words, a solicitor may confine the matter to "x" which he believes to be the real issue and if I challenge him and say you disregarded "y" and "z", he may reply, "Yes, I did. But I BELIEVED that only "x" was the real issue.
This "belief" may be utterly incompetent, but...if he truly believes it, it's a 100% escape clause.
I suppose it comes down to what does the term "believe" mean. I may, for example, believe that 1 + 1 = 3, but I don't think that satisfies the term "belief". I'm wondering if this 17.2.1 "belief" has to be grounded in some way...for example..does the belief have to be "reasonable" or measure up to some standard?
Another question that arises...if a solicitor makes a judgment call that "breaches" his instructions, does he have to satisfy all the three sub-clauses (17.2.1, 17.2.2, 17.2.3) or is it sufficient that he just satisfies 17.2.1?