In a message dated 1/1/2007 5:48:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
irdd@netzero.net writes:
your agent should be an advocate looking after your interests...your
dissimilar to a lawyer...
Actually buying property is not such an advocacy situation when the market
is stable. It has pretty much been a sellers market as far market value. A real
estate agent has to present every offer present for the purchase of his
listing, so I can not see where advocacy is concerned? If there are no other
buyers it is simply a matter of presenting offers to buy. The agent should seek a
waiver, and invariably does when he or she represents buyer and seller. But
as I said in an earlier email a good broker can work for both sides to each
of their advantage. Conditions are more important in a sellers market where
the market value is easily ascertained.
Lawyers are definitely advocates but they often represent two clients with
adverse agendas via waiver and extensive communications as to all options. Many
attorneys do mediations on civil issues advocating both sides.
Your suggestion that a defendant should never allow a prosecutor to
represent him is amusing--but actually more times than not, a defendant is
represented by a public defend or who works for the same employer as the and system as
the prosecutor, but has much less clout and resources. And before actual
going to the steps of the courtroom, most defendants rely heavily on the DA's
office and may cut better deals than getting a third party into the pot to stir
the situation.
But indeed, you are correct, when you are in a situation of advocacy with
adverse agendas, and an aggressive adversary who is out to diminish your
position you do need separate representation.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]