Could a Vermont borrower’s lawyer also act as the lender’s closing agent in the same loan?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A bank proposed that a lawyer on its approved list conduct loan closings at its office, ensure its requirements were met, and also perform title and document work for the borrower. The lender would prepare much of the loan documentation and disburse the proceeds.
The committee concluded that the changed logistics did not remove the conflict identified in earlier Opinion 90-8. Acting as the lender’s closing agent could compromise the lawyer’s independent representation of the borrower, particularly given the lawyer’s continuing relationship with the lender. The committee distinguished Opinion 94-8, which permitted lender-only representation without representing the borrower.
Vermont Opinion 01-02 later expressly reconsidered and revised the committee’s earlier lender-borrower position under the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted in 1999.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1995 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history says the Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Code and applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999; the court later made comprehensive amendments in 2009. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 rule, deadline, or requirement.
The committee expressly revised its lender-borrower position in Opinion 01-02.
Common questions
Q: Did conducting the closing at the lender’s office change the answer?
A: No. The committee found the lender-agent role still conflicted with representing the borrower.
Q: Could the lawyer act only for the lender?
A: The opinion distinguished Opinion 94-8, which allowed lender-only representation without undertaking borrower representation.
Q: Did Vermont later revisit this holding?
A: Yes. Opinion 01-02 expressly revised the earlier lender-borrower position under the later Rules of Professional Conduct.
Background and rules framework
The opinion reaffirmed Vermont Opinions 90-8 and 94-8 under the former Code. The later Opinion 01-02 revisited joint lender-borrower representation under Rule 1.7.
Citations and references
Other opinions cited:
- Vermont Opinions 90-8 and 94-8
See also
Source
- Landing page: VBA conflict of interest opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 95-03
- Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”
- Later opinion: Vermont Advisory Opinion 01-02, “The Committee revises its prior position on the propriety of an attorney representing a lender and a borrower in the same transaction.”
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1995. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace