Representation in Purchase of Foreclosed Property
Adopted: January 23, 2009
Opinion rules that a lawyer who represented the trustee or served as the trustee in a foreclosure proceeding at which the lender acquired the subject property may represent all parties on the closing of the sale of the property by the lender provided the lawyer concludes that his judgment will not be impaired by loyalty to the lender and there is full disclosure and informed consent.
Inquiry #1:
Seller (a financial institution) acquires property as a result of the foreclosure by execution of the power of sale contained in a deed of trust securing its own note or a note that it was servicing. Buyer entered into a contract with Seller to buy the property that was repossessed via foreclosure.
Attorney A regularly handles foreclosure proceedings for Seller either serving as the trustee or as the lawyer for the trustee (both roles are referred to herein as the “foreclosure lawyer"). In the current proceeding Attorney A served as the foreclosure lawyer.
Buyer would like Attorney A to close the sale. May Attorney A represent both Buyer and Seller on the closing of the transaction, including examining title and giving an opinion as to title to Buyer or on behalf of Buyer?
Opinion #1:
Yes, provided there is full disclosure to Buyer of all potential risks and Buyer gives informed consent. Multiple representation of parties to a real estate closing is allowed in RPC 210 and in 97 FEO 8. The latter opinion holds that a lawyer who regularly represents a real estate developer may represent the buyer and the developer in the closing of residential real estate. Rule 1.7 permits multiple representation notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest if the lawyer concludes that he or she can provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client and the clients give informed consent which is confirmed in writing.
If Attorney A's relationship with Seller is such that Attorney A's personal financial interests in preserving and protecting his relationship with Seller impairs his independent professional judgment, ability to provide competent and diligent representation to Buyer, and/or his ability to be objective and impartial when making disclosures necessary to obtain informed consent, then Attorney A may not seek the informed consent of Buyer and may not represent Buyer in the closing.
If Attorney A concludes that, under the circumstances, he can still exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of all of the parties to the closing, he may seek the informed consent of Buyer. Obtaining the informed consent of the buyer in this situation means that the buyer must be advised of the potential risks to a purchaser of property that was previously foreclosed including the distinctions between marketable and insurable title and between a non-warranty and a warranty deed. The buyer must also be advised of his potential liability for homeowners' association dues. Most importantly, the lawyer must disclose his prior participation in the foreclosure and explain that the lawyer must examine his own work on the foreclosure to certify title to the property.
Attorney A may represent all of the parties to the closing even if Buyer procures financing to purchase the property (including financing provided by Seller). Attorney A must be able fully to explain, without objection from the lender/seller the loan documents, setting forth the terms of repayment (and potentially including a balloon payment and/or prepayment penalty), and the status of title including any material exceptions between the lender's and owner's title insurance policies.
If Buyer consents to the representation, Attorney A may proceed unless and until it becomes apparent that he cannot manage the potential conflict between the interests of the lender/seller and the buyer. If the lawyer 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.
Inquiry #2:
Under the facts of Inquiry #1, the contract signed by Buyer provides that Seller will select the title and closing agent. However, the contract specifies that the buyer is also entitled to legal representation at the buyer's own expense. Seller names Attorney A as the "title/closing agent" for the sale to Buyer. While serving in the capacity of "title/closing agent", Attorney A proposes to provide legal representation to both Buyer and Seller with the consent of both parties. May Attorney A represent both Buyer and Seller on the closing of the transaction, including examining title and giving an opinion as to title to Buyer?
Opinion #2:
No. Although 97 FEO 8 allows a lawyer to represent both the developer and the buyer of a house in a subdivision with the informed consent of the buyer, the purchase of foreclosed property presents special risks to a purchaser that are not present in the purchase of a subdivision property. The purchaser of foreclosed property requires legal representation that is completely unimpaired by even the potential of a conflict of interest. The fact that Attorney is named in the contract as the title/closing agent indicates that there is a close business and professional relationship between Attorney A and Seller. It is apparent that, under these circumstances, it is in Attorney A's personal financial interest to preserve and protect his relationship with Seller. This self-interest will impair Attorney A's independent professional judgment and his ability to be objective and impartial when making the disclosures necessary to obtain informed consent from Buyer. Therefore, Attorney A may not seek the informed consent of Buyer and may not represent Buyer in the closing.
Inquiry #3:
Under the facts of Inquiry #2, Attorney B regularly represents Seller on various matters but did not represent the trustee on the foreclosure of the subject property and did not act as trustee. May Attorney B represent both Buyer and Seller on the closing of the transaction, including examining title and giving an opinion as to title to Buyer?
Opinion #3:
Yes, subject to fulfilling the conditions on common representation set forth in opinion #1.
Inquiry #4:
Under the facts of Inquiry #2, Attorney A intends to represent only the interests of Seller and does not intend to represent Buyer in closing the transaction. May Attorney A limit his representation in this manner?
Opinion #4:
Yes, Attorney A may limit his representation to Seller. However, if he does so, in light of the provisions of the purchase contract, it is possible that Buyer will be misled about Attorney A's role. Therefore, Attorney A 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. See, e.g., RPC 40 (disclosure must be far enough in advance of the closing that the buyer can procure his own counsel), RPC 210, 04 FEO 10, and Rule 4.3(a). Because of the strong potential for Buyer to be misled, the disclosure must be thorough and robust.
Inquiry #5:
Under the facts of Inquiry #4, if Attorney A limits his representation to Seller, but closes the transaction, does he have any duty to disclose or discuss any of the following with Buyer: defects of title; the difference between insurable title and marketable title; the exceptions contained in the title policy and the need for exception documents at closing; and the terms of the sales contract?
Opinion #5:
If Attorney A explicitly limits his representation to Seller, he cannot give any legal advice to Buyer except the advice to secure counsel. Rule 4.3(a). In light of the significant issues involved for Buyer, Attorney A should advise Buyer to obtain his own lawyer.
Inquiry #6:
Under the facts of Inquiry #4, Attorney A closes the transaction. The contract required the buyer to pay the closing agent's "customary closing fee," therefore, Buyer pays a fee to Attorney A as the title/closing agent. Subsequently, a defect of title caused by Seller is discovered. May Attorney A be held liable to Buyer for malpractice?
Opinion #6:
This is a legal question that is outside the purview of the Ethics Committee.
Inquiry #7:
Under the facts of Inquiry #1, the contract to buy the property signed by Buyer contains the following conditions: Seller will select the title and closing agent; Seller will pay the title examination fee and the premium for the owner's title insurance policy; Buyer will pay the title/closing agent's "customary closing fee"; and all closing transactions will be held at the title/closing agent's office. The contract specifies that the buyer is entitled to legal representation at the buyer's own expense. Seller names Attorney A as the "title/closing agent" for the sale to Buyer.
May Attorney A represent both Buyer and Seller on the closing of the transaction, including examining title and giving an opinion as to title to Buyer?
Inquiry #7:
No, see Opinion #2 above.
Inquiry # 8:
Under the facts of Inquiries #2, 3 and 4, Buyer asks Attorney Y to represent him on the closing of the purchase of the property. Buyer wants Attorney Y to examine the title to the property, give his opinion as to title, and act as Buyer's agent at the closing.
Attorney A insists that the contract requires Buyer to accept him as the closing agent for the transaction even if he only represents Seller. May Attorney A refuse to allow Attorney Y to participate in the closing as Buyer's lawyer?
Opinion #8:
No. Clients are entitled to legal counsel of their choice. See, e.g., RPC 48. A lawyer may not participate in any scheme or contract that states or implies that a party to the transaction does not have the right to obtain independent legal counsel to represent his interests. Drafting such a provision for a client or agreeing to provide representation pursuant to such a provision is unethical because the provision will chill the buyer's right to independent legal counsel even if the enforceability of the provision is doubtful.
Attorney A may, by the terms of the purchase agreement, be the designated closing agent for the sale. However, if Buyer hires a lawyer to represent his interests by examining and giving him an opinion on title and participating in the closing on his behalf, the other lawyer may not interfere with this representation. See, e.g., Rule 4.2. In addition, Attorney A must comply with the prohibition in Rule 4.2(a) on direct communications with a represented person without the consent of the lawyer for the represented person. Any funds that are delivered by Buyer to Attorney A are held by Attorney A in a fiduciary capacity for Buyer and must be disbursed in accordance with and upon fulfillment of the conditions of the contract. See Rule 1.15-2(a). If Buyer chooses to obtain his own lawyer, Attorney A may not interfere with Buyer's representation by his chosen lawyer or needlessly complicate the ability of that lawyer to represent Buyer. Both lawyers shall endeavor to insure that closing responsibilities are completed expeditiously and in compliance with RPC 191 and the Good Funds Settlement Act (if applicable). Specifically, both lawyers shall endeavor expeditiously to provide and review draft documents, to resolve title issues subject to the terms of the contract, to deliver the executed documents, to update title, and to disburse the closing funds.
Inquiry #9:
Under the facts of Inquiries #2, 3, and 4, Attorney A agrees that Attorney Y will represent Buyer's interests at the closing. However, Attorney A claims that he is still entitled to a fee from Buyer because the terms of the contract.
May the legal fee for Attorney A's representation of Seller be charged to Buyer?
Opinion #9:
Whether the contract to purchase the property requires Buyer to pay Attorney A'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. Attorney A's time and labor relative to the closing may be reduced because of the legal services performed by Attorney Y on behalf of Buyer. If so, this fact should be taken into account in determining whether the "customary fee" for closing the transaction is excessive and an appropriate reduction in the fee should be made. Rule 1.5(a). Because Buyer is represented by Attorney Y, Attorney A may not charge or collect any money for representing Buyer.
Inquiry #10:
A real estate agent prepared the purchase contract. It alters the usual closing arrangements, waives many "normal" rights of a buyer, and favors the seller by allowing the seller to terminate the contract for any reason and return the deposit without further liability. Is the real estate agent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when preparing the contract? Does it matter whether the real estate agent is a buyer's agent, a seller's agent, or a dual agent? Does it matter whether the seller and the buyer have different real estate agents? Is consumer protection legislation needed?
Opinion #10:
These questions do not relate to the professional responsibilities of lawyers and cannot be answered by the Ethics Committee.