One of the first things we learn as real estate licensees is the need to avoid practicing law without a license. And attorneys love to remind all of us that our expertise as agents and brokers does not extend to giving legal opinions.
In light of those constant reminders, I'm amazed to read posts by ActiveRain bloggers who profess to be experts on all manner of legal issues, including Fair Housing law.
For example, there's a well-known blogger here who never fails to lecture others on constitutional law. And a couple days ago, another well-known member of this community made a comment on my blog, criticizing the legal staff of NAR for its wording of the recent Amendment to Article 10 of the Realtor Code of Ethics and calling it "vague".
Where did these armchair legal experts get their law degrees?
Last night, another expert joined the debate on the COE Amendment, expressing her concern that the leadership of NAR "did not think" about the implications of the recent Code of Ethics Amendment before passing it.
This really puzzles me. During the past seven months, I spent a good amount of time attending meetings at NAR Midyear and the recent NAR Annual in New Orleans, including those involving the NAR Equal Opportunity Committee and the Professional Standards Committee. I watched the process by which this Amendment was crafted by attorneys and debated at length. Funny thing though, I never saw any of the aforementioned critics present at those meetings, not a single one of them.
The Amendment process was no secret. It was well-publicized and there were numerous opportunities for members of the Realtor® community to get involved and to have input along the way.
Kindly explain to me how a blogger who had no involvement in or knowledge of the process is able to conclude that the NAR leadership team didn't "think" before drafting and passing this Amendment.
To those who have appointed themselves legal experts on this issue, let me suggest something. Contact NAR General Counsel Laurie Janik and express your concerns to her. I'm pretty sure you'll get a reply.
The drafting of language in the most recent Amendment to Article 10 of the Code of Ethics was part of a process that has spanned more than two years. The Amendment was a response to the perception that equal treatment for LGBT consumers was a "loophole" that actually endorsed discrimination. Like decades of prior amendments to the Code (including amendments dealing with disability and familial status), the latest Amendment was patterned after volumes of Federal and state civil rights law. NAR has a history of half a century or more of building these protections into its Code of Ethics, so this is not exactly something new.
Those of you who were paying attention in high school History class will recall that we have fifty years of Civil Rights laws on the books in this country because people were being denied equal access to basic needs, including housing. Housing discrimination still exists in America and that ongoing discrimination has been well-documented by HUD and by the National Fair Housing Alliance.
That is the reason we have Article 10 of the Realtor Code of Ethics. If there was no discrimination, these provisions would not be necessary. Grousing about the protections in Article 10 of the Code of Ethics ignores the fact that the real estate industry is rooted in a long tradition of equal housing opportunity.
I'll conclude by saying that I strongly disagree with those who seem quick to dismiss this newest Amendment to the Code as an error in judgement or a hastily-crafted piece of knee-jerk political correctness. Instead of badmouthing NAR and trying to second guess the people who worked hard to make this a reality, it would be far more constructive to recognize that equality in housing is the future of real estate.
Comments (4)Subscribe to CommentsComment