Editor's note: This brief was summarised by The Property AI Newsroom from a report by The Negotiator. Read the original article for full details.
Adam Walker Explains Risks of Dual Representation in Property Deals
Adam Walker has outlined the reasons his firm chooses not to act for both buyers and sellers in property transactions, citing significant conflicts of interest that can arise. He states that representing both sides can undermine the clarity of purpose required to achieve the best outcome for clients.
Walker explains that when acting for sellers, the goal is to secure the best possible price and terms, rather than simply closing a quick or easy deal. He notes that if an agent has recently advised a buyer on how to negotiate a lower price, it would be difficult to credibly argue for a premium price when later representing a seller to the same buyer.
He also highlights practical challenges, such as situations where a company seeks help to acquire a competitor, but the competitor later approaches the agent to sell their business. In such cases, whichever party the agent chooses to represent, the other may feel aggrieved, potentially eroding trust.
Walker further states that he finds acquisition work uncomfortable, as it often involves tactics aimed at reducing the seller’s value, such as renegotiating offers or adjusting completion accounts. He believes his role should be to protect sellers from these manoeuvres, not to deploy them.
For these reasons, Walker’s firm acts exclusively for sellers, aiming to maintain client confidence and avoid divided loyalties. He also notes that similar tensions exist in the residential property market, where the effectiveness of so-called ‘Chinese walls’ between buying and selling teams has been questioned.
Source: The Negotiator