People who read my blog know how I feel about dual agency.  To define it yet again, dual agency is when one single real estate agent represents both the buyer and the seller in a real estate transactions. 

As a general rule, I think dual agency is a joke, it shouldn't be legal, and the statutes and rules should be changed to absolutely prohibit dual agency in any real estate transaction, residential or commercial.  However, I appear to be in the clear minority in the real estate agent community, and the Virginia Association of Realtors ("VAR") is a pretty powerful lobby.  So I suspect the laws and regulations permitting dual agency will remain, at least until there is some scandal and consumers wake up to this legally permissible, but ethically dubious, practice.

[ASIDE:  Maybe if dual agency was prohibited, it would clean-up some of the more egregious behavior in the commercial real estate brokerage world also, which I think would be a great thing]. 

Here's an interesting article from Christopher Cruise at www.bankrate.com titled "Is 'Your' Agent Really Working for You?"  [ASIDE:  I love the fact that he uses the divorce lawyer example to illustrate why a buyer taking advice from the listing agent is such a bad idea.  I used that same example too!]. 

[ASIDE:  Actually, I just double-checked my earlier post, now linked, and my analogy for dual agency was using the same lawyer to represent both the plaintiff and defendant in a personal injury lawsuit, not divorce.  I think I like the divorce analogy better].

I do disagree with Mr. Cruise's generally negative view of designated agency.  Designated agency is when two agents from the same brokerage represent the buyer and the seller.  To use RE/MAX Commonwealth as an example, there are multiple offices and agents that I have never met, never seen, never worked with.  To say RE/MAX Agent A couldn't independently represent buyer, with RE/MAX Agent B representing seller, because they both happen to be RE/MAX agents - well, that's just silly, in my opinion.  So long as designated agency is appropriately disclosed to both parties, and the agents observe carefully their fiduciary obligations to maintain the confidences of their own clients, I don't see why the fact that RE/MAX is the common broker should "bounce" one of the agents from representing their client.

So, read someone else's opinion, and form your own.  And as always, if you are looking to buy or sell a home, I'd be honored to help you.  And I promise NOT to represent both sides.