In a designated agent situation, the principal broker is by law acting as a dual agent and is in a conflict of interest position even if legal disclosure is made.

Virginia law requires disclosure of dual agency but our Code of Ethics requires “informed dislcosure”. Though this phrase is not defined it does appear to place a further obligation on an agent to make some type of explanation of the consequences to seller or buyer accepting dual agency. It doesn’t go far enough in my opinion.

Unfortunately, the laws in our state regarding dual agency (including designated agency) do not require an agent to specifically disclose to either seller or buyer the number of ways in which his “representation” of them will change once dual agency is invoked by him or his broker.

Specific examples should be given such as “I can no longer advise you on value or offering price”. They won’t be hearing information such as “I can no longer inform you about the wild and loud parties that go on every weekend at the house next door”.

When signing most listing agreements sellers agree in advance to go along with the a potential dual agency without this vital information. The agent is already free on the seller side to work as a dual agent as long as his buyer client agrees.

I wonder how many well informed sellers or buyers would agree to go along with it when offered if they knew that “their agent” could no longer be their advocate but would merely be providing ministerial services?

I wonder how many times the request to agree to dual agency is presented to a seller as the agent is holding an offer in hand.

I wonder how many times the act of bringing in a second agent to “represent” one side in a designated agency situation is accomplished at the last minute with little knowledge of the new client by the new agent and without actually being familiar with the property or showing it to him.

Our Code of Ethics requires Realtors to ALWAYS place the best interests of our clients ahead of our own. It could, in my opinion, do a better job of helping us accomplish this as could our state regulations.

And last but not least, most good lawyers would never let themselves get involved in a similar situation with two clients.
What does that tell you?

Dual Agency, where the same agent “represents” both the buyer and seller should be banned. It’s like having the same attorney “represent” both the plaintiff and the defendant.

In Dual Agency, technically, the agent does not represent either party and is only a facilitator of the transaction. What good does that do for either party or for real estate in general?

Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting. That reasoning is exactly why I felt the need to clarify. I was in a meeting last week and was making my case, and felt that this clarification would strengthen my opposition, and the general opposition to Dual Agency.