2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 14 adopted October 29, 2010 prohibits an attorney from writing title insurance with a title agency owned by a spouse when closing a real estate transaction. The North Carolina State Bar opines that a lawyer's interest in having the spouse's title agency receive compensation may conflict with the lawyer's duty to close in the client's best interest. The Bar stated that the lawyer's personal relationship with the owner of the agency will influence the lawyer's choice of insurer, as well as affecting the effectiveness of the lawyer's negotiations with the title company on his client's behalf with respect to issues of title insurance coverage that may have to be negotiated between the closing lawyer and the insurer. "The lawyer's client and the insurer will necessarily have competing interests as to the extent of the coverage and the amount of the premium." The Opinion also rules that the conflict may not be waived by inform consent.

2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 17, also adopted October 29, 2010 states that whether an attorney may tack to a Lender's title policy relates to the standard of care rather than to matters within the purview of the Ethics Committee.

Proposed 2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 8 posted October 28, 2010 deals with an attorney's services in various capacities after representing a party to Partition Proceeding. The opinion would rule that an attorney representing a party in a proceeding to partition the property may not be appointed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §46-6 as a disinterested person to represent any unknown persons interested in the property in the proceeding. The attorney may serve as the commissioner and collect a commission from the public sale, provided the attorney concludes that he can serve impartially and also terminates his representation of any person with an interest in the property. "The role of the commissioner is a neutral one with fiduciary responsibilities to all of the owners of the property."

The attorney may not purchase the property at a public or private sale and may not serve as a Commissioner in a division after representing any of the parties. Full text follows.

2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 14

Placing Client's Title Insurance in Agency in Which Lawyer's Spouse Has an Ownership Interest

October 29, 2010

Opinion rules that a lawyer participating in a real estate transaction may not in such transaction place his client's title insurance in a title insurance agency in which the lawyer's spouse has any ownership interest.

Inquiry:

May Lawyer participating in a real estate transaction place his client's title insurance with a title insurance agency in which Lawyer's spouse has an ownership interest?

Opinion:

No. Rule 1.7 provides that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if the representation of one or more clients may be materially limited by a personal interest of the lawyer. Rule 1.7(a)(2).

The Ethics Committee has previously examined personal conflicts of interest between title insurance agencies and real estate closing lawyers. In CPR 101 (1977), the Ethics Committee concluded that it is unethical for a lawyer who owns a substantial interest, directly or indirectly, in a title insurance agency, and who acts as a lawyer in a real estate transaction insured by the title insurance agency, to receive any compensation or benefit from the title insurance agency regardless of whether the ownership interest is disclosed to the client.

In RPC 185 (1994), the Ethics Committee determined that even an insubstantial interest in a title insurance agency could materially impair the judgment of the closing lawyer. The opinion provides that if a title agency, and, therefore, indirectly a closing lawyer who owns an interest in the title agency, will receive compensation from the client as a result of the closing of the transaction, the lawyer's personal interest in having the title insurance agency receive its compensation could conflict with the lawyer's duty to close the transaction only if it is in the client's best interest. The opinion held that the conflict of interest is too great to be allowed even if the client wishes to consent.

In an unpublished ethics decision, ED 97-6 (1998), the Ethics Committee examined a fact scenario substantially similar to the one currently presented and determined that it is a conflict of interest for a lawyer to perform title work and place the title insurance with a title insurance agency operated by the lawyer's spouse.

The instant scenario presents a personal conflict of interest. The lawyer's personal interest in having his spouse's title insurance agency receive its compensation may conflict with the lawyer's duty to close the transaction only if it is in the client's best interest. In addition, the lawyer's personal relationship with the owner of the title insurance company will influence the lawyer's choice of the spouse's company as the insurer, as well as the vigorousness of the lawyer's negotiations with the title company on his client's behalf. Issues of title insurance coverage may have to be negotiated between the closing lawyer and the insurer. The lawyer's client and the insurer will necessarily have competing interests as to the extent of the coverage and the amount of the premium.

The conflict of interest is too great to be allowed, even with the client's informed consent. A closing lawyer must be able to make an independent recommendation of a title insurance company to his client, unbiased by any personal interest. In addition, a lawyer opining on title to property should be independent from the title insurance agency issuing the title insurance in reliance upon that opinion. This is consistent with the emphasis that the North Carolina legislature has placed on the professional and financial independence of the closing lawyer from the title insurance agency. See, e.g. N.C.G.S. § 58-26-1(a)(title insurance company may not issue insurance as to North Carolina real property unless the company has obtained the opinion of a North Carolina licensed attorney who is not an employee or agent of the company) and N.C.G.S. § 58-27-5(a) (lawyer who performs legal services incident to a real estate sale may not receive any payment, directly or indirectly, in connection with the issuance of title insurance for any real property which is a part of such sale).

This scenario differs from RPC 188, in which the Ethics Committee concluded that a lawyer may represent the buyer and/or lender in a real estate transaction brokered by the lawyer's spouse. RPC 188 provides that, although there is a conflict, clients may consent to the representation. RPC 188 can be distinguished because the lawyer did not choose the real estate broker for his client and was not involved in negotiations with the real estate broker as to the terms of the real estate sales contract.

2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 17

Tacking as Question of Standard of Care

October 29, 2010

Opinion rules that whether a lawyer rendering a title opinion to a title insurer should tack to an owner's policy of title insurance or a mortgagee's (lender's) policy is a question of standard of care and outside the purview of the Ethics Committee

Inquiry:

RPC 99 holds that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not require personal inspection of all documents in the chain of title so long as a lawyer rendering an opinion on title for real property fully discloses to the client the precise nature and extent of the service being rendered. The opinion further states, "Since title insurers frequently omit exceptions in mortgagees' policies that would appear in owners' policies, tacking should be limited to tacking onto owners' policies."

May a lawyer render a title opinion to a title insurance company by tacking to a mortgagee's (lender's) title insurance policy?

Opinion:

This issue of the appropriate standard of care for rendering a title opinion is outside the purview of the Ethics Committee. To the extent that RPC 99 appeared to opine on the standard of care relative to tacking to an owner's policy versus a mortgagee's (lender's) policy for the purpose of rendering a title opinion, that part of the opinion is withdrawn.

Whether tacking to an owner's policy or a mortgagee's policy, a lawyer's duty is to provide competent representation to his client, consistent with Rule 1.1, and to reasonably consult with the client about the means used to accomplish the client's objectives. Rule 1.4(a)(2). The lawyer must consult with the client before using a method of rendering a title opinion that might present additional risk for the client.

Proposed 2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 8
Service as Commissioner after Representing Party to Partition Proceeding
October 28, 2010

Proposed opinion provides guidelines for a lawyer for a party to a partition proceeding and rules that the lawyer may subsequently serve as a commissioner for the sale but not as one of the commissioners for the partitioning of the property.

Inquiry #1:

Attorney is retained by a person with an interest in property to represent him in a proceeding to partition the property pursuant to Chapter 46 of the North Carolina General Statutes. N.C. Gen. Stat. §46-6 authorizes the court to appoint a disinterested person to represent any person interested in the property whose name is unknown and who fails to appear in the proceeding. May Attorney represent the existing client and also agree to be appointed to represent any unknown person with interest in the property?

Opinion #1:

No. There is a potential conflict between the interests of the existing client and the interests of the unknown person(s). One of the critical issues in a partition proceeding is whether the property should be sold or partitioned. See, e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. §46-22(c)(party seeking sale has burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that actual partition cannot be made without substantial injury to the interested parties). If Attorney has an existing client with a specific interest in the proceeding, Attorney cannot be disinterested as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. §46-6 or exercise independent professional judgment as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct when evaluating and representing the interests of the unknown person(s). The potential conflict cannot be resolved by consent because the unknown person(s) is unavailable to consent. Rule 1.7.

Inquiry #2:

At the conclusion of the proceeding, the clerk of court orders the public sale of the property and, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§1-399.4 and 46-28, appoints Attorney as the commissioner for the sale.1 May Attorney serve as the commissioner and collect a commission from the public sale?

Opinion #2:

Yes, provided Attorney concludes that he can serve fairly and impartially and, further provided, Attorney terminates his representation of any person with an interest in the property.

The role of the commissioner is a neutral one with fiduciary responsibilities to all of the owners of the property. However, a commissioner conducting a public sale has limited discretion because he must follow the specific procedural requirements for judicial sales set forth in Chapter 1, Article 29A of the General Statutes. Attorney may, therefore, serve as commissioner for the sale upon determining that he can fulfill the role impartially, without bias for or against any of the parties to the partition proceeding, and upon terminating his representation of any person with an interest in the property. In the similar situation of a lawyer serving as a trustee on a deed of trust in foreclosure, the ethics opinions also allow the lawyer to relinquish the representation of the lender or the debtor to serve in the impartial fiduciary role of trustee for the foreclosure. See RPC 46, RPC 82, RPC 90.

N.C. Gen. Stat. §46-28.1 permits any party to a partition proceeding to file a petition for revocation of the order confirming the sale provided the petition is filed within 15 days and is based upon grounds that are specified in the statute. Therefore, the client's legal needs may not end with the entry of the order of sale and the appointment of a commissioner. Anticipating that a client might desire additional legal representation after the sale, at the beginning of the representation the lawyer must notify the client of the lawyer's intention to seek to withdraw from the representation upon the entry of an order of sale in order to be appointed by the clerk as commissioner. See Rule 1.4. After the entry of the order of sale and before seeking the permission of the clerk to withdraw from the representation to serve as the commissioner for the sale, the lawyer must obtain the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing, to withdraw from the representation to serve as commissioner. See Rule 1.16.

At the beginning of the representation, if Attorney does not intend to serve as a commissioner for the sale, he does not have to communicate with the client about potential service as a commissioner. If the circumstances change and Attorney subsequently decides to seek the appointment, failure to notify the client at the beginning of the representation will not prohibit Attorney from subsequently asking for the client's informed consent to withdraw to serve as a commissioner.

Inquiry #3:

At the conclusion of the proceeding, the clerk of court orders a private sale of the property pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§46-28 and 1-339.33. May Attorney be designated as the person authorized to make the private sale pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-339.33(1)?

Opinion #3:

Yes, subject to the conditions set forth in Opinion #2.

Inquiry #4:

If Attorney is appointed the commissioner for a public sale or the person authorized to make the private sale, may Attorney purchase the property at the sale?

Opinion #4:

No. As the appointed commissioner or the person appointed to conduct the private sale, Attorney has a duty to oversee the sale of the property in a fair and impartial manner. Advancing a personal interest by bidding on or making an offer on the property violates this duty. See 2006 FEO 5 (county tax lawyer who is appointed commissioner may not bid at tax foreclosure sale).

Inquiry #5:

At the conclusion of the proceeding, the clerk of court orders the public sale of the property but appoints another person as commissioner for the sale. May Attorney bid at the sale on his own behalf?

Opinion #5:

No. This would be a conflict of interest between the lawyer's self-interest in purchasing the property at the lowest price and the client's interest in selling the property for the highest price. Rule 1.7(a)(2). However, Attorney may bid on the property if he is doing so on behalf of the client.

Inquiry #6:

At the conclusion of the proceeding, the clerk of court orders the partition of the property. May Attorney agree to be appointed as one of the three commissioners responsible for dividing the property?

Opinion #6:

No. A commissioner for a partitioning must exercise discretion in determining how to divide the property, thus directly affecting the interests of the various parties to the proceeding. Moreover, there remain opportunities for Attorney to advocate for his client's interests in the event the commissioners seek input from the parties or in the event of an appeal. Attorney cannot, therefore, serve as an impartial commissioner. Rule 1.7(a).

Inquiry #7:

Assume that Attorney formerly represented one or more of the parties in a separate but related partition proceeding (i.e., a prior proceeding involving the same property that did not result in partition or sale), but does not represent any of the parties to the current proceeding.

May Attorney serve as one of the commissioners to conduct the sale or to partition the property?

Opinion #7:

Yes, provided Attorney determines that he can act impartially. See Opinion #1 and Rule 1.7.

Inquiry #8:

Assume that Attorney formerly represented one or more of the parties in a separate but related partition proceeding (i.e., a prior proceeding involving the same property that did not result in partition or sale), but does not represent any of the parties to the current proceeding.

May Attorney serve as the court-appointed lawyer for any "unknown owner" pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §46-6?

Opinion #8:

Yes, with the informed consent, confirmed in writing, of Attorney's former client(s). Rule 1.9(a) prohibits a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter from representing a new client in the same or a substantially related matter if the interests of the new client are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Inquiry #9:

Assume that Attorney formerly represented one or more of the parties in a separate but related partition proceeding (i.e., a prior proceeding involving the same property that did not result in partition or sale), but does not represent any of the parties to the current proceeding.

May Attorney purchase the property at the sale?

Opinion #9:

Yes, unless Attorney received confidential information from a former client relative to the property that Attorney could use to the former client's disadvantage when bidding on the property. Rule 1.9(c)(1).

If a lawyer no longer represents a former client, the lawyer's only duties to the former client are to avoid adverse representations of others in the same or a substantially related matter and to avoid using confidential client information to the disadvantage of the former client. Although the partition sale may be substantially related to the prior partition proceeding, a lawyer who is purchasing for his own interest is not engaged in the representation of an adverse party and, therefore, the prohibition on representations adverse to a former client in Rule 1.9(a) is inapplicable. However, the prohibition on using the confidential information of a former client to the disadvantage of the former client would apply unless, as Rule 1.9(c)(1) permits, the information has become generally known.