Firstly, to be clear I understand your perspective,band frustration. My posts aren't intended to argue with you (in case anyone reads them as such), but to give an alternative view.
Iteresting about other cases. Are they linked here or in the media
Do the names Michael Lynn or Thomas Byrne ring a bell? They're highest profile ones.
I'm aware of other cases, but not at liberty to discuss. The fact your solicitors files were taken over by the law society might suggest not everything was above board with your solicitor. There are other reasons of course, but yours might not be the only case with your solicitor.
I don't know how these things work, but I'm surprised that the law society didn't contact you when they found the issue, as you're also a 'victim' of the solicitor not completing the job. It might be worth contacting them. As a minimum, they have a compensation fund and might cover any legal costs you incur as a result of this.
The mortgage market depends on solicitor undertakings. If a bank double checked everything before issuing funds, the whole property market would grind to a halt except for cash buyers. The reality is that banks don't (or at least didn't always) double check that they had everything. Your mortgage has a file, they issued the mortgage on a solicitor's undertaking, and that was good enough. If they got further information in future, they added it to your file, but generally they'd have had no reason to ever open your file again unless you got into serious arrears, or they wanted to sell your loan.
In terms of statute of limitations, that's where the fraud angle works really well for banks. There is no real statute of limitations where fraud is concerned.