In Taylor v. DeLosso, 319 N.J. Super. 174, 725 A.2d 51 (App. Div. 1999), this court instructed that in a professional negligence case plaintiff must produce expert testimony upon which the jury could find that the consensus of the particular profession involved recognized the existence of the standard defined by the expert. It is insufficient for plaintiff's expert simply to follow slavishly an "accepted practice" formula; there must be some evidential support offered by the expert establishing the existence of the standard. A standard which is personal to the expert is equivalent to a net opinion. Id. at 180, 725 A.2d 51. In Taylor, plaintiff's expert witness testified that the defendant architect deviated from accepted standards of architectural practice by failing to make a site inspection of plaintiff's property to verify the location of a maple tree before preparing the site plan. Ibid. Plaintiff's expert testified that when a plan involves a small site, a "prudent architect would go to the site and make sure that he knows where that tree is, because all his work is going to revolve around that tree." Ibid. The Court explained that the problem with this testimony was that plaintiff's expert "presented no authority supporting his opinion. No reference was made to any written document, or even unwritten custom or practice indicating that the consensus of the architectural community recognizes a duty to make a site inspection for 'small sites.'" Ibid. In this regard, we were concerned by the "the total absence in plaintiff's expert's testimony of reference to any text book, treatise, standard, custom or recognized practice, other than his personal view." Id. at 182, 725 A.2d 51 The Court therefore concluded that this testimony constituted a net opinion, and defendants were thus entitled to a judgment of dismissal as a matter of law. Id. at 184, 725 A.2d 51.