The original case was based on a dispute regarding
the square footage of a property purchased by the plaintiff, Hiroshi Horiike.
Horiike was represented by the same company marketing the property for sale,
Coldwell Banker. But, the case has now morphed into an examination by the court
of the practice of dual agency. The question of whether any one brokerage firm
can really represent two different parties – buyer and seller or tenant and
landlord – and provide “conflict free” representation to each side within the
same real estate transaction will be examined by the court.
Dual agency has been a common practice in both
residential and commercial brokerage firms where the parties to a real estate
transaction are represented by an agent (or agents) from the same brokerage
company. “This court case proves the point that tenant representation firms
have been making for years, that lines can easily blur when an agency represents
both sides of a transaction,” said William Strong, an ITRA Global corporate
real estate advisor from San Diego. “It’s very clear to us that you can only
advocate for one party in a lease or purchase, and so ITRA Global advisors choose
to only work for corporate space users. This ensures our client’s interests are
our top priority without question.”
Many of the world’s largest real estate companies
both practice and encourage dual agency. CBRE, JLL, and DTZ/Cushman &
Wakefield all represent property owners and sellers which are their primary
clients and source of income. But, these same firms also represent corporate
tenants and buyers in lease and sale transactions. In many cases, these dual
agents are actually members of the same in house leasing team that represents
the landlords or sellers, so the opportunity for conflicts of interest is very
high. Yet, these firms have long insisted that they have internal policies
which mitigate potential conflicts of interest. “When traditional commercial
real estate brokerage firms engage in dual agency, representing the owner or
seller of property, while also representing the tenant or buyer in the same
transaction, conflict of interest is inevitable. It’s simply impossible for one
firm to act with absolute neutrality while representing the interests of two
opposing parties with disparate interests” said Chris Carmen, President of
Carmen Commercial Real Estate Services in Indianapolis. Carmen, whose firm only
represents space occupiers added “The large traditional brokerage firms that
practice dual agency will always reap the greatest compensation from on-going
relationships with property owners as opposed to the one-time fee generated
through representing a tenant. The broker or brokerage firm’s bias will always
be in favor of the landlord or property owner, where they can glean the
greatest benefit.”
With respect to a dual agent providing the same
services as a designated tenant rep firm when representing a space user or
tenant, Debra Stracke Anderson with the ITRA Global office in Washington D.C.
added “When dual agency exists, it is far more likely that a tenant will be
steered to a building that is managed or leased by the dual agent’s company for
one of their landlord clients. The listing agent's fiduciary responsibility is
solely to the landlord, so the dual agent's incentive to aggressively negotiate
on behalf of the tenant rather than the landlord is significantly diminished
for fear of losing the listing and the lucrative business of the landlord
client entirely. The dual agents keep the entire commission in-house, while
providing a new tenant for their landlord client, viewing this as a win-win.
However, we see it as a huge conflict of interest and certainly detrimental to
the best interests of the tenant."
Ultimately the court’s decision may impact both the
disclosure practices and the bottom line of large commercial firms that
practice dual agency. “Regardless of the outcome of the case, the mere fact that
it is before the California Supreme Court shows that there are serious issues
with these legacy real estate companies representing both sides of a real
transaction. That is why corporate space users should be using a “tenant rep”
only company, to ensure their interests are always the top priority of their
broker,” noted Strong.
Written by Wayne Teig (ITRA Global Minneapolis) &
William Strong (ITRA Global San Diego)
ITRA Global is an organization of real estate
professionals specializing in representing commercial tenants and buyers in the
leasing, acquisition and disposition of office, industrial and retail
facilities. With coverage in major markets around the world, ITRA Global is one
of the largest organizations dedicated to representing tenants and occupiers of
commercial real estate. Clients benefit by having an experienced professional
as their trusted advisor, providing conflict-free representation with total objectivity.
To learn more about conflict-free representation and ITRA Global locations,
please visit the ITRA Global web site.