When you’re involved in a property transaction, the idea of using the same solicitor for both buyer and seller may seem like an efficient and cost-saving move. While this arrangement is technically possible, it’s heavily regulated due to the risk of conflicts of interest. Here’s what you need to know about whether this approach could work for your transaction and what factors to consider.
Is It Possible?
In most property transactions, it is indeed possible to use the same solicitor, but it’s subject to strict conditions.
Conflict of interest is the primary concern. A solicitor’s duty is to act impartially and uphold each client’s best interests. If acting for both the buyer and seller, they may face divided loyalties, especially if issues arise that impact one party more significantly than the other. This arrangement is generally only allowed if the two parties have “substantially common interests” – meaning both parties aim for a straightforward, conflict-free transaction with no complex negotiations.
Are There Alternative Approaches?
An alternative solution is for each party to have a solicitor within the same firm but with separate oversight. This can allow the firm to handle the transaction more cohesively while ensuring each client receives independent representation. Many conveyancing firms also offer collaborative setups where different representatives within the firm manage each client independently, helping to mitigate risks.
This structure is beneficial in cases where you might also need a transfer of equity solicitor to manage separate ownership rights during the transaction. In these cases, having separate legal representation ensures that each party’s individual interests are safeguarded without risking a conflict of interest.
Advantages of Sharing a Solicitor
One of the main reasons people consider using the same solicitor is to streamline communication and potentially reduce costs. When only one legal representative is involved, there’s no need for the back-and-forth document exchanges that can slow down the process. A single solicitor can often work more efficiently, helping to expedite the transaction as they manage both sides’ paperwork, contracts, and any necessary property searches.
Risks of Dual Representation
Despite the apparent benefits, dual representation comes with some serious risks. The primary issue is that a shared solicitor must maintain impartiality, which can limit the scope of advice they provide. For example, if an inspection reveals problems with the property, a shared solicitor may struggle to advise the buyer on negotiating repairs or price reductions without appearing to favour one party over the other. This limitation could leave either party feeling inadequately represented, which is a particular risk in complex transactions or in house chains where several properties are involved.
If a serious conflict arises during the transaction, regulations require that the solicitor stop representing both parties entirely. This could force both parties to seek new legal representation, causing delays and potentially increasing costs if the chain is affected. For these reasons, most solicitors advise against shared representation in property chains, where conflicts are more likely.
Is It Worth the Risk?
While using the same solicitor can streamline your property transaction, it’s essential to consider the potential drawbacks. Property transactions often involve nuanced legal issues, and having dedicated legal support can provide invaluable peace of mind. Before making a decision, it’s wise to consult with professionals to weigh the potential savings against the risks, especially if the transaction involves complex negotiations or house chain dynamics.