Proposed opinion examines the ethical duties of a lawyer representing both the buyer and the seller on the purchase of a foreclosure property and the lawyer’s duties when the representation is limited to the seller.
Editor’s note: This opinion supplements and clarifies 2006 FEO 3.
Bank A foreclosed its deed of trust on real property and was the highest bidder at the sale. Bank A listed the property. Seller entered into a contract to purchase the property.
An addendum to the Offer to Purchase and Contract (“Contract”) signed by the parties states that the closing shall be held in Seller’s lawyer’s office by a date certain and that Seller, Bank A, “shall only pay those closing costs and fees associated with the transfer of the Property that local custom or practice clearly allocates to Seller … and the Buyer shall pay all remaining fees and costs.” Bank B is providing financing for the transaction.
Seller chose Law Firm X to close the residential real estate transaction. Law Firm X did not participate in the foreclosure of the property prior to the sale; however, Law Firm X regularly does closings for properties sold by Bank A.
Law Firm X proposes to send Buyer a letter advising Buyer that it has been chosen as settlement agent and advising Buyer that it will be representing both parties in the transaction. Law Firm X will charge Buyer $425 for the closing.
May Lawyer at Law Firm X participate in the joint representation of Buyer and Seller as contemplated by the Contract?
If a lawyer is named as the closing agent for a residential real estate transaction pursuant to an agreement such as the one set out above, the lawyer has a duty to ensure that he can comply with Rule 1.7 prior to accepting joint representation of the buyer and seller. When contemplating joint representation, a lawyer must consider whether the interests of the parties will be adequately protected if they are permitted to give their informed consent to the representation, and whether an independent lawyer would advise the parties to consent to the conflict of interest. Representation is prohibited if the lawyer cannot reasonably conclude that he will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to all clients. See Rule 1.7, cmt. . As stated in comment  to Rule 1.7, the representation of multiple clients “is improper when it is unlikely that impartiality can be maintained.”
The Ethics Committee has previously concluded that, under certain circumstances, it may be acceptable for a lawyer to represent the borrower, the lender, and the seller in the closing of a residential real estate transaction. See, e.g. CPR 100, RPC 210. Joint representation may be permissible in a residential real estate closing because, in the usual transaction, the contract to purchase is entered into by the buyer and seller prior to the engagement of a lawyer. Therefore, the lawyer has no obligation to bargain for either party. Similarly, the buyer and the lender have agreed to the basic terms of the mortgage loan prior to the engagement of the closing lawyer. However, in CPR 100, the Ethics Committee specifically stated that:
[a] lawyer having a continuing professional relationship with any party to the usual residential transaction, whether the seller, the lender, or the borrower, should be particularly alert to determine in his own mind whether or not there is any obstacle to his loyal representation of other parties to the transaction, and if he finds that there is, or if there is any doubt in his mind about it, he should promptly decline to represent any other party to the transaction.
In addition to the above determination, Rule 1.7 requires that the lawyer obtain any affected client’s informed consent to the joint representation and to confirm that consent in writing. Rule 1.7.
Comment  to Rule 1.0 (Terminology) provides that, to obtain “informed consent,” a lawyer must “make reasonable efforts to ensure that the client or other person possesses information reasonably adequate to make an informed decision.” Comment  clarifies that, ordinarily, this will require: (1) communication that includes a disclosure of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the situation; (2) any explanation reasonably necessary to inform the individual of the material advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of conduct; and (3) a discussion of the individual’s options and alternatives.
To obtain Buyer’s “informed” consent in the instant scenario, Lawyer must: (1) explain the proposed scope of the lawyer’s representation; (2) disclose Lawyer’s prior relationship with Seller; (3) explain the advantages and risks of common representation; and (4) discuss the options/alternatives Buyer has under the Contract, such as hiring his own lawyer at his own expense. See Rule 1.0, 97 FEO 8, 2006 FEO 3.
If the above requirements are met, Lawyer may proceed with the common representation. If Lawyer subsequently determines that he can no longer exercise his independent professional judgment on behalf of both clients, he must withdraw from the representation of both clients.
If Lawyer determines at the outset that the common representation will be adverse to the interests of either Buyer or Seller, or that his judgment will be impaired by loyalty to Seller, Lawyer may not represent both parties. Similarly, if Buyer does not consent to the joint representation, Lawyer may not represent both parties.
Buyer notifies Lawyer at Law Firm X that he wants to have his own lawyer represent him at the closing. Therefore, Law Firm X intends to limit its representation to Seller. To clarify its role in the transaction, Lawyer sends Buyer an Independently Represented Buyer Acknowledgement to sign agreeing that, although Law Firm X was providing services necessary and incidental to effectuating a settlement of the transaction, including providing an opinion of title for the Buyer’s policy to the title insurance company chosen by and affiliated with Bank A, there will be no attorney-client relationship between Law Firm X and Buyer. Law Firm X informs Buyer that the charge for the closing will be reduced to $325.
May Law Firm X limit its representation to Seller and charge Buyer $325 for closing the real estate transaction?
Upon notice that Buyer wants to have his own lawyer represent him at the closing, Lawyer must first determine whether Buyer desires Law Firm X to continue to represent his interests in conjunction with his own lawyer. If Buyer desires Law Firm X to continue to represent his interests in the closing, then Law Firm X may continue to advise Buyer and the firm would not be required to adjust its fee.
If Buyer does not consent to the joint representation, Lawyer may limit his representation to Seller in the absence of a conflict of interest. Under the circumstances, it is incumbent upon Lawyer to clarify its role to Buyer. 2006 FEO 3 specifically holds that a lawyer may represent only the seller’s interests in a transaction and provide services as a title and closing agent, as required by the contract of sale. There must, however, be certain robust and thorough disclosures to the buyer.
Pursuant to 2006 FEO 3, Lawyer must “fully disclose to Buyer that Seller is his sole client, he does not represent the interests of Buyer, the closing documents will be prepared consistent with the specifications in the contract to purchase and, in the absence of such specifications, he will prepare the documents in a manner that will protect the interests of his client, Seller, and, therefore, Buyer may wish to obtain his own lawyer.” 2006 FEO 3.
If Lawyer limits his representation to Seller, Lawyer may not perform any legal services for Buyer. At the conclusion of the representation, Lawyer needs to consider the factors set out in Rule 1.5(a) and determine whether the fee of $325 is clearly excessive for the services performed for Seller.
Whether the contract to purchase the property requires Buyer to pay Lawyer’s fee for representation of Seller is a legal question outside the purview of the Ethics Committee. However, a lawyer may be paid by a third party, including an opposing party, provided the lawyer complies with Rule 1.8(f) and the fee is not illegal or clearly excessive in violation of Rule 1.5(a). See RPC 196.
Similarly, Buyer’s authority to renegotiate the terms of the Contract pertaining to the selection of the closing lawyer, and/or the payment of the closing costs and fees associated with the closing, are outside the purview of the Ethics Committee.
May Lawyer provide an opinion of title to the title insurance company for Buyer’s title insurance policy under the circumstances described in Inquiry #2?
In representing Seller, Law Firm X may provide an opinion on title to the title insurer sufficient and necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Contract and facilitate completion of the transaction on behalf of Seller. See CPR 100, RPC 210, 2006 FEO 3.
CPR 100 and RPC 210 provide that a lawyer who is representing the buyer, the lender, and the seller (or any one or more of them) may provide the title insurer with an opinion on title sufficient to issue a mortgagee title insurance policy, when the premium is paid by the buyer. CPR 100 further recommends that, because a buyer-borrower is usually inexperienced in the purchase of real estate and the securing of loans thereon, “any lawyer involved in the transaction, even though not representing the borrower, should be alert to inform the borrower of the availability of an owner’s title insurance policy which is usually available to the borrower up to the amount of the loan at little or no expense to the borrower, and assist the borrower in obtaining an owner’s title insurance policy.”
Particularly as bankruptcy is an arena where the Borrower/Homeowner may benefit from having an owner’s title insurance policy, for example where a Chapter 7 Trustee seeks to set aside a flawed or preferential Deed of Trust, the failure to have alerted the Borrower to the availability of such policies could subject the closing attorney to suit or disciplinary action.