Can a North Carolina closing lawyer who regularly represents a developer-seller also represent the buyer in closing a residential sale?

Plain-English summary

This opinion supplemented RPC 210 (April 4, 1997) on common representation in a typical residential closing, addressing the added problems when the closing lawyer regularly represents a seller in the business of real estate development. The lawyer's financial interest in keeping the developer's business may compromise the lawyer's ability to act impartially toward the buyer.

The opinion concluded the lawyer may close the transaction for both seller and buyer only if the lawyer reasonably believes the common representation will not be adverse to either client, makes full disclosure of the prior representation of the seller, and obtains the buyer's consent (RPC 210; Rule 2.2). Because the lawyer has a long-standing relationship with and financial interest in the seller, the lawyer must carefully evaluate whether loyalty to the seller will interfere with responsibilities to the buyer (Rule 2.2(a)(3)), and may proceed only if there is little likelihood an actual conflict will arise and minimal potential prejudice if one does (Rule 2.2(a)(2)). Full disclosure must tell the seller the lawyer owes equal responsibility to the buyer and cannot prefer the seller, and must tell the buyer the nature and extent of the lawyer's prior and current work for the seller, including any work on the specific property or the subdivision. The lawyer must also explain the scope of representation and that, if a conflict develops, the lawyer must withdraw from representing all parties (RPC 210; Rule 2.2(c)). Disclosure must precede closing; written consents are not required but are the better practice.

The opinion concluded the result does not change where the lawyer merely drafted the seller's model purchase contract, or merely completed the written contract without negotiating its terms, so long as the conditions for common representation are met. It also concluded the lawyer may represent the buyer's lender along with the buyer and seller where the basic loan terms were agreed before the lawyer's engagement (RPC 210), and may participate in an arrangement where the seller pays the buyer's legal fees and the lawyer closes all sales for a pre-agreed fee, again subject to the same impartiality and disclosure conditions. But the lawyer may not proceed where the lawyer holds the seller's confidential information that the buyer needs (for example, that the seller may be unable to complete promised subdivision amenities, or close title questions on the lot) and the seller instructs the lawyer not to disclose it; in that case the lawyer cannot conclude that responsibilities to the seller will not interfere with responsibilities to the buyer (Rules 1.7(c), 1.6).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, before North Carolina's adoption of the 2003 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It relies on former Rule 2.2 (the lawyer as intermediary), which the 2003 revisions eliminated; common-representation conflicts are now analyzed under Rule 1.7. It also cites Rules 1.7(c), 1.6, and 1.5 under the numbering then in effect. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a North Carolina lawyer who regularly represents a developer also close the sale for the buyer?

A: The opinion concluded yes, but only if the lawyer reasonably believes the common representation will not be adverse to either client, fully discloses the prior relationship with the developer, and obtains both parties' consent (RPC 210; former Rule 2.2).

Q: What must the lawyer disclose to the buyer?

A: The opinion concluded the lawyer must explain the nature and extent of prior and current work for the seller, including any work on the specific lot or the subdivision, the scope of the representation, and that the lawyer must withdraw from all parties if a conflict develops.

Q: What if the lawyer knows the developer may not finish promised amenities?

A: The opinion concluded the lawyer may not undertake the common representation if the seller forbids disclosure of that confidential information, because the lawyer cannot then adequately represent the buyer without using the seller's confidences (Rules 1.7(c), 1.6).

Q: May the developer pay the buyer's closing fees and have the lawyer close every sale?

A: The opinion concluded yes, if the lawyer reasonably believes the common representation can be handled impartially and discloses the lawyer-seller relationship before the buyer signs the contract.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former North Carolina Rule 2.2 (the lawyer acting as intermediary between clients), Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest, including the continuing duty to evaluate conflicting interests in paragraph (c)), Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), and Rule 1.5 (fees), the analogues to former Model Rule 2.2 and Model Rules 1.7, 1.6, and 1.5, to common representation of a developer-seller and a buyer. It built on prior opinion RPC 210 on common representation in residential closings.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflicts of interest) / NC Rule 1.7(c)
• MR 1.6 (confidentiality) / NC Rule 1.6
• MR 1.5 (fees) / NC Rule 1.5
• Former MR 2.2 (intermediary) / NC Rule 2.2(a)-(c) (eliminated by NC's 2003 revisions)

Other opinions cited:

• RPC 210: common representation of buyer and seller in a residential real estate closing

See also

• NC State Bar Op. 99 FEO 9: Lawyer's Obligation to Disburse Closing Funds
• NC State Bar Op. 99 FEO 3: Representation of Adverse Interests by Legal Services Lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/97-formal-ethics-opinion-8/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Introduction:

This opinion supplements RPC 210 (April 4, 1997), an opinion on common representation in a typical residential real estate closing. This opinion addresses the issues that arise in common representation when the closing lawyer regularly represents a seller who is in the business of real estate development. The lawyer's financial interest in retaining the seller's business may present special problems. This opinion explains the conditions that must be met before a closing lawyer may proceed with common representation.

Inquiry #1:

Seller is in the business of buying residential lots and tracts of land, improving the lots and/or subdividing the land for residential or condominium development, and selling the improved lots and land. Seller frequently uses the services of Attorney to provide legal representation on various aspects of Seller's real estate transactions including, but not limited to, performing the base title work, preparing restrictive covenants, and drafting construction contracts.

Buyer entered into a contract with Seller to purchase a residential lot and house built by Seller. The contract was negotiated and executed without the involvement of Attorney. Seller wants Attorney to close the transaction. If Attorney closes the transaction, Attorney will provide legal services to Buyer including providing an opinion as to title and preparing the loan documents. May Attorney close the transaction and represent both Seller and Buyer?

Opinion #1:

Yes, provided Attorney reasonably believes that the common representation will not be adverse to the interests of either client, there is full disclosure of Attorney's prior representation of Seller, and Buyer consents to the common representation. See RPC 210 and Rule 2.2 of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.

In RPC 210, it is observed that:

[i]f the interests of the buyer and seller of residential property are generally aligned and the lawyer determines that he or she can manage the potential conflict of interest between the parties, the lawyer may represent both the buyer and the seller in closing a residential real estate transaction with the consent of the parties.

Before concluding that common representation is permitted, the lawyer must consider "whether there is any obstacle to the loyal representation of both parties." RPC 210. Where a lawyer has a long-standing professional relationship with a seller and a financial interest in continuing to represent the seller, the lawyer must carefully and thoughtfully evaluate whether he or she will be able to act impartially in closing the transaction. The lawyer may proceed with the common representation only if the lawyer reasonably believes that his or her loyalty to the seller will not interfere with the lawyer's responsibilities to the buyer. Rule 2.2(a)(3). Also, the lawyer may not proceed with the common representation unless he or she reasonably believes that there is little likelihood that an actual conflict will arise out of the common representation and, should a conflict arise, the potential prejudice to the parties will be minimal. RPC 210 and Rule 2.2(a)(2).

If the lawyer reasonably believes the common representation can be managed, the lawyer must make full disclosure of the advantages and risks of common representation and obtain the consent of both parties before proceeding with the representation. Revised Rule 2.2(a)(1). This disclosure should include informing the seller that, in closing the transaction, the lawyer has equal responsibility to the buyer and, regardless of the prior representation of the seller, the lawyer cannot prefer the interests of the seller over the interests of the buyer. With regard to the buyer, the lawyer must fully disclose the lawyer's prior and existing professional relationship with the seller. This disclosure should include a general explanation of the extent of the lawyer's prior and current representation of the seller and a specific explanation of the lawyer's legal work, if any, on the property that is the subject of the transaction. The latter should include the disclosure of all legal work relating to the development of a subdivision if relevant.

Full disclosure to the seller and to the buyer must also include an explanation of the scope of the lawyer's representation. See RPC 210. In addition, the lawyer should explain that if a conflict develops between the seller and the buyer, the lawyer must withdraw from the representation of all parties and may not continue to represent any of the clients in the transaction. RPC 210 and Rule 2.2(c). For example, the lawyer may not take a position of advocacy for one party or the other with regard to the completion of the construction of the house, the escrow of funds for the completion of the construction, problems with title to the property, and enforcement of the warranty on new construction. Areas of potential conflict should be outlined for both parties prior to obtaining their separate consents to the common representation.

The disclosure required must be made prior to the closing of the transaction. The Revised Rules of Professional Conduct do not require the consents to be in writing. However, obtaining written consents is the better practice.

If common representation is permitted under the conditions outlined above, Attorney may perform legal services for both parties as necessary to close the transaction including offering an opinion as to title to the buyer. Either party may be charged for the lawyer's services as appropriate. See Rule 1.5.

Inquiry #2:

Would the answer to inquiry #1 be different if Attorney drafted the model purchase contract that Seller uses to market the lots and houses in the subdivision but Attorney did not participate in the final negotiation of any of the specific provisions of the purchase contract between Seller and Buyer?

Opinion #2:

No, Attorney may still close the transaction and represent both Buyer and Seller provided he can satisfy the conditions on common representation set forth in opinion #1 above.

Inquiry #3:

May Attorney engage in common representation of Buyer and Seller if Attorney memorialized the purchase agreement between Buyer and Seller by completing the written purchase contract without participating in the negotiation of any of its specific terms?

Opinion #3:

Yes, Attorney may represent both Buyer and Seller if he can satisfy the conditions on common representation set forth in opinion #1 above.

Inquiry #4:

The house and lot that Buyer has contracted to purchase from Seller are located in a subdivision that is being developed by Seller. As a result of his representation of Seller on matters relating to the development of the subdivision, Attorney is aware that Seller is having financial difficulties and may be unable to complete the promised amenities in the subdivision, including a swimming pool and tennis courts. Seller has instructed Attorney not to disclose this information. May Attorney represent both Seller and Buyer to close the transaction?

Opinion #4:

No. Rule 1.7(c) provides that:

[a] lawyer shall have a continuing obligation to evaluate all situations involving potentially conflicting interests and shall withdraw from representation of any party he or she cannot adequately represent or represent without using the confidential information or secrets of another client or former client except as Rule 1.6 allows.

Rule 1.6(a) defines confidential client information as information learned during the course of representation of a client the disclosure of which would be detrimental to the interests of the client. The information regarding Seller's potential inability to complete the amenities in the subdivision is confidential information of Seller that Attorney may not disclose unless Seller consents. See Rule 1.6(c). However, to represent Buyer adequately, Attorney should disclose this information. In this situation, Attorney cannot reasonably conclude that his responsibilities to Seller will not interfere with his responsibilities to Buyer. See opinion #1 above. Attorney may not, therefore, accept the common representation.

Inquiry #5:

Completion of the amenities for the subdivision are not in question. However, Attorney prepared the base title for the subdivision and he is aware that there are some close questions on title to the lot under contract to Buyer. Although these matters may be insignificant, Attorney would normally disclose this information to Buyer. Seller has instructed Attorney not to disclose the information to Buyer. May Attorney represent Buyer and Seller to close the transaction?

Opinion #5:

No, unless Seller consents to the disclosure of the information. See opinion #2 above and Rule 1.6(c).

Inquiry #6:

Attorney analyzed his relationship with Seller and determined that he can impartially represent both Seller and Buyer in closing the sale of the house and lot to Buyer. Buyer and the lender chosen by Buyer have agreed to the basic terms of the mortgage loan (amount, security, interest rate, installment, and maturity) prior to the engagement of Attorney to close the transaction. May Attorney represent both the lender and Buyer, as well as Seller?

Opinion #6:

Yes. See RPC 210.

Inquiry #7:

Seller believes that it will result in savings of time and money if Attorney closes all of the sales in the subdivision. Seller would like to offer financial incentives to potential buyers to encourage them to use the closing services of Attorney. In particular, Seller would like to offer to pay all legal fees to close the transaction if the buyer agrees that Attorney will handle the closing. Seller asks Attorney if Attorney will close all sales for a pre-agreed fee. Seller also asks Attorney if Seller may include a provision in the contract to purchase in which Seller agrees to pay the legal fees if the buyer agrees that Attorney will close the transaction. May Attorney agree to participate in this arrangement?

Opinion #7:

Yes, if Attorney reasonably believes that the common representation can be handled impartially and the proper disclosure of the professional relationship between Seller and Attorney is made prior to the execution of the contract by the buyer. See Opinion #1 above.