Lets start with an easy one.

Do you think dual agency is right? I am very much apposed to it. I believe when I am hired to act as a persons real estate agent (a fiduciary relationship) my primary responsibility is to act solely in the best interest of that party. I don't think that responsibility should end if the opportunity to double my commission arises.

In the practice of law an attorney could never represent both sides of a lawsuit. In fact an entire law firm won't represent both sides of the same case.

Why are agents allowed to represent and in effect, take money from both sides of a transaction? For that matter why is a broker allowed to do this?

I sort of agree but I noticed most of my buyers come out because a listing I have... usually they don't care for the listing but want me to work with them otherwise.
If you feel strong about it and you find the right buyer refer them to somebody else and be honest with them...tell them you are representing the seller in this case and would like to refer them to another agent so they get a loyal representation as well. You'll still get the 25-30% referral fee and you'll be doing what you feel is fair. The buyer and the seller will probably respect that as well.

In the mid 90's I used to sell about 30% of my own listings and therefore did many dual agency transactions. I never had a problem with it and neither did the buyers and sellers.
Several states have done away with dual agency and replaced it either with transaction broker or facilitator or designated broker like in our state.
As more lawsuits arise out of dual agency contracts, the states RE commission and legislature will start looking at this conflict of interest and start changing it.
It’s just another progression in how the business of RE is done, I would not try to circumvent the RE laws because of personal moral or ethical beliefs, I leave that up to the RE commission.

I am absolutely against it. I don't think there is any possible way to stay unbiased to both parties at one time. I think it's a powder keg and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

We no longer have "dual agency" here, but we do have intermediary clauses in our listing contracts, either with appointments, or without. I prefer appointments, but it's not a requirement where I'm at now.

Taking a stand against dual agency is not a circumvention of the real estate law. Most governing bodies including real estate commissions are reactive and only work on changing what is broken after many consumers have been wronged and many complaints filed. Why not take a stand ahead of the real estate commission. Isn't that the ethical thing to do?

My feeling is that dual agency should be avoided at all costs, even if it means not making as much money on that transaction.

That is a personal choice you can make, but since it was the companies (C-21) policy at that time and legal, I was not willing to give away a large part of my business, especially since I or anyone else I dealt with never had a problem.

Well that's great that no one had a problem, but do you really think that both parties received there moneys worth? Did you represent them both as well as you would have if you had only represented one party? I don't see how you could have.

That is a personal choice you can make, but since it was the companies (C-21) policy at that time and legal, I was not willing to give away a large part of my business, especially since I or anyone else I dealt with never had a problem.

Absolutely!!! The level of satisfaction by the buyer and seller of how the transaction was handled by me, became even more important with the added responsibility of representing both sides. The level of fiduciary liability was also increased because of it (which keeps you on your toes).
Like I said, that was then, and this is now, and we don't have sub and dual egency any more.
What is your take on Designated Broker, given your concerns about dual agency?

I would suggest that your clients level of satisfaction had more to do with the fact that they like you. When you represent one client in a transaction don't you try and negotiate the best possible terms for that client? Isn't that part of the service you normally provide. How can you do that "representing both parties"?

I am not familiar with the term Designated Broker. In Illinois we use the term "Managing Broker" and "Designated Agent" A managing broker designates an agent to represent the brokerages client. Is your question about designated agency vs. sub agency?

Designated Broker.
Where the employing broker can have 2 agents (buyers agent and sellers agent) within the same company represent (agency) the buyer and seller on one property, without having revert to transaction broker relationship.
http://members.ppar.com/private/designated_brokerage.asp

I would replace the word "like" with "trust" and you would have had it right.

You are right, trust.

I have started to read the doc you provided a link to, very interesting. Your state real estate laws are very different from ours.

Thanks

The word is that we are one of the most progressive one license (broker only) state in the nation. We have full recognition agreements with 27 states (no exam required) and limited recognition with 9 states (state portion only).
My personal preference would be a one license nation, to where buyers and sellers can expect the same legal treatment and understand the buying and selling process to be the same throughout the nation.
Maybe next year, HA!

That would be a great thing, having a national code. I wont hold my breath though.

Not a big fan of "nationalized" anything.....gets much too cumbersome.

But then, I'm a pretty staunch supporter of states rights.

I'll trade in my US National Passport for a Texas one.
Having lived in N.Y., CA, N.M., TX, LA, AK, AZ, CO, I really would have appreciated a National Drivers License.