Arbitration and Dispute Resolution
Traditionally, real estate industry disputes rely on negotiation for solutions. If negotiation fails, litigation is often initiated. Mediation involves the skillful intervention of a third-party professional to help resolve disputes that arise between two or more parties.
Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts. The parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters," or "arbitral tribunal"), whose decision (the "award") they agree to be bound. It is a settlement technique in which a third party reviews the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides.
Article 17, Code of Ethics
“In the event of contractual disputes or specific non-contractual disputes as defined in Standard of Practice 17-4 between Realtors® (principals) associated with different firms, arising out of their relationship as Realtors®, the Realtors® shall mediate the dispute if the Board requires its members to mediate. If the dispute is not resolved through mediation, or if mediation is not required, Realtors® shall submit the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the policies of the Board rather than litigate the matter.
In the event clients of Realtors® wish to mediate or arbitrate contractual disputes arising out of real estate transactions, Realtors® shall mediate or arbitrate those disputes in accordance with the policies of the Board, provided the clients agree to be bound by any resulting agreement or award.
The obligation to participate in mediation and arbitration contemplated by this Article includes the obligation of Realtors® (principals) to cause their firms to mediate and arbitrate and be bound by any resulting agreement or award.” (Amended 1/12)
Note: The full list of Professional Standards Policy Statements can be downloaded (PDF: 737 KB) or viewed here.
1. Article 17, Code of Ethics
“In the event of contractual disputes or specific non-contractual disputes as defined in Standard of Practice 17-4 between REALTORS® (principals) associated with different firms, arising out of their relationship as REALTORS®, the REALTORS® shall mediate the dispute if the Board requires its members to mediate. If the dispute is not resolved through mediation, or if mediation is not required, REALTORS® shall submit the dispute to
arbitration in accordance with the policies of the Board rather than litigate the matter.
In the event clients of REALTORS® wish to mediate or arbitrate contractual disputes arising out of real estate transactions, REALTORS® shall mediate or arbitrate those disputes in accordance with the policies of the Board, provided the clients agree to be bound by any resulting agreement or award.
The obligation to participate in mediation and arbitration contemplated by this Article includes the obligation of REALTORS® (principals) to cause their firms to mediate and arbitrate and be bound by any resulting agreement or award.” (Amended 1/12)
Procuring Cause
One type of contract frequently entered into by REALTORS® is the listing contract between sellers and listing brokers. Procuring cause disputes between sellers and listing brokers are often decided in court. The reasoning relied on by the courts in resolving such claims is articulated in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, definition of procuring cause:
The proximate cause; the cause originating a series of events which, without break in their continuity, result in the accomplishment of the prime object. The inducing cause; the direct or proximate cause. Substantially synonymous with “efficient cause.”
A broker will be regarded as the “procuring cause” of a sale, so as to be entitled to commission, if his efforts are the foundation on which the negotiations resulting in a sale are begun. A cause originating a series of events which, without break in their continuity, result in accomplishment of prime objective of the employment of the broker who is producing a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy real estate on the owner’s terms. Mohamed v. Robbins, 23 Ariz. App. 195, 531 p.2d 928, 930.
See also Producing cause; Proximate cause.
Disputes concerning the contracts between listing brokers and cooperating brokers, however, are addressed by the National Association’s Arbitration Guidelines promulgated pursuant to Article 17 of the Code of Ethics. While guidance can be taken from judicial determinations of disputes between sellers and listing brokers, procuring cause disputes between listing and cooperating brokers, or between two cooperating brokers, can be resolved based on similar though not identical principles. While a number of definitions of procuring cause exist, and a myriad of factors may ultimately enter into any determination of procuring cause, for purposes of arbitration conducted by Boards and Associations of REALTORS®, procuring cause in broker to broker disputes can be readily understood as the uninterrupted series of causal events which results in the successful transaction. Or, in other words, what “caused” the successful transaction to come about. “Successful transaction,” as used in these Arbitration Guidelines, is defined as “a sale that closes or a lease that is executed.” Many REALTORS®, Executive Officers, lawyers, and others have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to develop a single, comprehensive template that could be used in all procuring cause disputes to determine entitlement to the sought-after award without the need for a comprehensive analysis of all relevant details of the underlying transaction. Such efforts, while well-intentioned, were doomed to failure in view of the fact that there is no “typical” real estate transaction any more than there is “typical” real estate or a “typical” REALTOR®. In light of the unique nature of real property and real estate transactions, and acknowledging that fair and equitable decisions could be reached only with a comprehensive understanding of the events that led to the transaction, the National Association’s Board of Directors, in 1973, adopted Official Interpretation 31 of Article I, Section 2 of the Bylaws. Subsequently amended in 1977, Interpretation 31 establishes that:
A Board rule or a rule of a Multiple Listing Service owned by, operated by, or affiliated with a Board, which establishes, limits or restricts the REALTOR® in his relations with a potential purchaser, affecting recognition periods or purporting to predetermine entitlement to any award in arbitration, is an inequitable limitation on its membership.
The explanation of Interpretation 31 goes on to provide, in part:
. . . [T]he Board or its MLS may not establish a rule or regulation which purports to predetermine entitlement to any awards in a real estate transaction. If controversy arises as to entitlement to any awards, it shall be determined by a hearing in arbitration on the merits of all ascertainable facts in the context of the specific case of controversy.
It is not uncommon for procuring cause disputes to arise out of offers by listing brokers to compensate cooperating brokers made through a multiple listing service. A multiple listing service is defined as a facility for the orderly correlation and dissemination of listing information among Participants so that they may better serve their clients and customers and the public; is a means by which authorized Participants make blanket unilateral offers of compensation to other Participants (acting as subagents, buyer agents, or in other agency or nonagency capacities defined by law); is a means by which information is accumulated and disseminated to enable authorized Participants to prepare appraisals and other valuations of real property; and is a means by which Participants engaging in real estate appraisal contribute to common databases. Entitlement to compensation is determined by the cooperating broker’s performance as procuring cause of the sale (or lease). While offers of compensation made by listing brokers to cooperating brokers through MLS are unconditional,*
[*Compensation is unconditional except where local MLS rules permit listing brokers to reserve the right to reduce compensation offers to cooperating brokers in the event that the commission established in a listing contract is reduced by court action or by actions of a lender. Refer to Part One, G. Commission/Cooperative Compensation Offers, Section 1, Information Specifying the Compensation on Each Listing Filed with a Multiple Listing Service of a Board of REALTORS®, Handbook on Multiple Listing Policy. (Adopted 11/98)]
the definition of MLS and the offers of compensation made through the MLS provide that a listing broker’s obligation to compensate a cooperating broker who was the procuring cause of sale (or lease) may be excused if it is determined through arbitration that, through no fault of the listing broker and in the exercise of good faith and reasonable care, it was impossible or financially unfeasible for the listing broker to collect a commission pursuant to the listing agreement. In such instances, entitlement to cooperative compensation offered through MLS would be a question to be determined by an arbitration Hearing Panel based on all relevant facts and circumstances including, but not limited to, why it was impossible or financially unfeasible for the listing broker to collect some or all of the commission established in the listing agreement; at what point in the transaction did the listing broker know (or should have known) that some or all of the commission established in the listing agreement might not be paid; and how promptly had the listing broker communicated to cooperating brokers that the commission established in the listing agreement might not be paid. (Revised 11/98)
Sample Fact Situation Analysis
The National Association’s Professional Standards Committee has consistently taken the position that arbitration awards should not include findings of fact or rationale for the arbitrators’ award. Among the reasons for this are the fact that arbitration awards are not appealable on the merits but generally only on the limited procedural bases established in the governing state arbitration statute; that the issues considered by Hearing Panels are often myriad and complex, and the reasoning for an award may be equally complex and difficult to reduce to writing; and that the inclusion of written findings of fact or rationale (or both) would conceivably result in attempts to use such detail as “precedent” in subsequent hearings which might or might not involve similar facts. The end result might be elimination of the careful consideration of the entire course of events and conduct contemplated by these procedures and establishment of local, differing arbitration “templates” or predeterminants of entitlement inconsistent with these procedures and Interpretation 31.
Weighed against these concerns, however, was the desire to provide some model or sample applications of the factors, questions, and issues set forth in these Arbitration Guidelines. The following “fact situations” and analyses are provided for informational purposes and are not intended to carry precedential weight in any hearing.
Fact Situation #1
Listing Broker L placed a listing in the MLS and offered compensation to subagents and to buyer agents. Broker Z, not a participant in the MLS, called to arrange an appointment to show the property to a prospective purchaser. There was no discussion of compensation. Broker Z presented Broker L with a signed purchase agreement, which was accepted by the seller. Subsequently, Broker Z requested arbitration with Broker L, claiming to be the procuring cause of sale.
Analysis: While Broker Z may have been the procuring cause of sale, Broker L’s offer of compensation was made only to members of the MLS. Broker L never offered cooperation and compensation to Broker Z, nor did Broker Z request compensation at any time prior to instituting the arbitration request. There was no contractual relationship between them, and therefore no issue to arbitrate.
Fact Situation #2
Same as #1, except Broker Z is the buyer’s agent.
Analysis: Same result, since there was no contractual relationship between Broker L and Broker Z and no issue to arbitrate.
Fact Situation #3
Broker L placed a listing in the MLS and offered compensation to subagents and to buyer agents. Broker S (a subagent) showed the property to Buyer #1 on Sunday and again on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Broker A (a subagent) wrote an offer to purchase on behalf of Buyer #1 which was presented to the seller by Broker L and which was accepted. At closing, subagency compensation is paid to Broker A. Broker S subsequently filed an arbitration request against Broker A, claiming to be the procuring cause of sale.
Analysis: Broker S’s claim could have been brought against Broker A (pursuant to Standard of Practice 17-4) or against Broker L (the listing broker), who had promised to compensate the procuring cause of sale, thus arguably creating a contractual relationship between Broker L and Broker S. (Amended 11/96)
Fact Situation #4
Same as #3, except Broker S filed the arbitration request against Broker L (the listing broker).
Analysis: This is an arbitrable matter, since Broker L promised to compensate the procuring cause of sale. Broker L, to avoid the possibility of having to pay two cooperating brokers in the same transaction, should join Broker A in arbitration so that all competing claims can be resolved in a single hearing. The Hearing Panel will consider, among other things, why Buyer #1 made the offer to purchase through Broker A instead of Broker S. If it is determined that Broker S initiated a series of events which were unbroken in their continuity and which resulted in the sale, Broker S will likely prevail.
Fact Situation #5
Same as #3, except Broker L offered compensation only to subagents. Broker B (a buyer agent) requested permission to show the property to Buyer #1, wrote an offer which was accepted, and subsequently claimed to be the procuring cause of sale.
Analysis: Since Broker L did not make an offer of compensation to buyer brokers, there was no contractual relationship between Broker L and Broker B and no arbitrable issue to resolve.
If, on the other hand, Broker L had offered compensation to buyer brokers either through MLS or otherwise and had paid Broker A, then arbitration could have been conducted between Broker B and Broker A pursuant to Standard of Practice 17-4. Alternatively, arbitration could occur between Broker B and Broker L.
Fact Situation #6
Listing Broker L placed a listing in the MLS and made an offer of compensation to subagents and to buyer agents. Broker S (a subagent) showed the property to Buyer #1, who appeared uninterested. Broker S made no effort to further contact Buyer #1. Six weeks later, Broker B (a buyer broker) wrote an offer on the property on behalf of Buyer #1, presented it to Broker L, and it was accepted. Broker S subsequently filed for arbitration against Broker L, claiming to be the procuring cause. Broker L joined Broker B in the request so that all competing claims could be resolved in one hearing.
Analysis: The Hearing Panel will consider Broker S’s initial introduction of the buyer to the property, the period of time between Broker S’s last contact with the buyer and the time that Broker B wrote the offer, and the reason Buyer #1 did not ask Broker S to write the offer. Given the length of time between Broker S’s last contact with the buyer, the fact that Broker S had made no subsequent effort to contact the buyer, and the length of time that transpired before the offer was written, abandonment of the buyer may have occurred. If this is the case, the Hearing Panel may conclude that Broker B instituted a second, separate series of events that was directly responsible for the successful transaction.
Fact Situation #7
Same as #6, except that Broker S (a subagent) showed Buyer #1 the property several times, most recently two days before the successful offer to purchase was written by Broker B (a buyer broker). At the arbitration hearing, Buyer #1 testified she was not dissatisfied in any way with Broker S but simply decided that “I needed a buyer agent to be sure that I got the best deal.”
Analysis: The Hearing Panel should consider Broker S’s initial introduction of the buyer to the property; that Broker S had remained in contact with the buyer on an ongoing basis; and whether Broker S’s efforts were primarily responsible for bringing about the successful transaction. Unless abandonment or estrangement can be demonstrated, resulting, for example, because of something Broker S said or did (or neglected to say or do but reasonably should have), Broker S will likely prevail. Agency relationships are not synonymous with nor determinative of procuring cause. Representation and entitlement to compensation are separate issues. (Amended 11/99)
Fact Situation #8
Similar to #6, except Buyer #1 asked Broker S for a comparative market analysis as the basis for making a purchase offer. Broker S reminded Buyer #1 that he (Broker S) had clearly disclosed his status as subagent, and that he could not counsel Buyer #1 as to the property’s market value. Broker B based his claim to entitlement on the grounds that he had provided Buyer #1 with information that Broker S could not or would not provide.
Analysis: The Hearing Panel should consider Broker S’s initial introduction of the buyer to the property; that Broker S had made early and timely disclosure of his status as a subagent; whether adequate alternative market information was available to enable Buyer #1 to make an informed purchase decision; and whether Broker S’s inability to provide a comparative market analysis of the property had clearly broken the chain of events leading to the sale. If the panel determines that the buyer did not have cause to leave Broker S for Broker B, they may conclude that the series of events initiated by Broker S remained unbroken, and Broker S will likely prevail.
Fact Situation #9
Similar to #6, except Broker S made no disclosure of his status as subagent (or its implications) until faced with Buyer #1’s request for a comparative market analysis.
Analysis: The Hearing Panel should consider Broker S’s initial introduction of the buyer to the property; Broker S’s failure to clearly disclose his agency status on a timely basis; whether adequate alternative market information was available to enable Buyer #1 to make an informed purchase decision; and whether Broker S’s belated disclosure of his agency status (and its implications) clearly broke the chain of events leading to the sale. If the panel determines that Broker S’s failure to disclose his agency status was a reasonable basis for Buyer #1’s decision to engage the services of Broker B, they may conclude that the series of events initiated by Broker S had been broken, and Broker B will likely prevail.
Fact Situation #10
Listing Broker L placed a property on the market for sale or lease and offered compensation to brokers inquiring about the property. Broker A, acting as a subagent, showed the property on two separate occasions to the vice president of manufacturing for ABC Corporation. Broker B, also acting as a subagent but independent of Broker A, showed the same property to the chairman of ABC Corporation, whom he had known for more than fifteen (15) years. The chairman liked the property and instructed Broker B to draft and present a lease on behalf of ABC Corporation to Broker L, which was accepted by the owner/landlord. Subsequent to the commencement of the lease, Broker A requested arbitration with Broker L, claiming to be the procuring cause.
Analysis: This is an arbitrable matter as Broker L offered compensation to the procuring cause of the sale or lease. To avoid the possibility of having to pay two commissions, Broker L joined Broker B in arbitration so that all competing claims could be resolved in a single hearing. The Hearing Panel considered both brokers’ introductions of the property to ABC Corporation. Should the Hearing Panel conclude that both brokers were acting independently and through separate series of events, the Hearing Panel may conclude that Broker B was directly responsible for the lease and should be entitled to the cooperating broker’s portion of the commission. (Adopted 11/96)
Fact Situation #11
Broker A, acting as the agent for an out-of-state corporation, listed for sale or lease a 100,000 square foot industrial facility. The property was marketed offering compensation to both subagents and buyer/tenant agents. Over a period of several months, Broker A made the availability of the property known to XYZ Company and, on three (3) separate occasions, showed the property to various operational staff of XYZ Company. After the third showing, the vice president of finance asked Broker A to draft a lease for his review with the president of XYZ Company and its in-house counsel. The president, upon learning that Broker A was the listing agent for the property, instructed the vice president of finance to secure a tenant representative to ensure that XYZ Company was getting “the best deal.” One week later, tenant representative Broker T presented Broker A with the same lease that Broker A had previously drafted and the president of XYZ Company had signed. The lease was accepted by the out-of-state corporation. Upon payment of the lease commission to Broker A, Broker A denied compensation to Broker T and Broker T immediately requested arbitration claiming to be the procuring cause.
Analysis: The Hearing Panel should consider Broker A’s initial introduction of XYZ Company to the property, Broker A’s contact with XYZ Company on an on-going basis, and whether Broker A initiated the series of events which led to the successful lease. Given the above facts, Broker A will likely prevail. Agency relationships are not synonymous with nor determinative of procuring cause. Representation and entitlement to compensation are separate issues.
Fact Situation #12
Broker A has had a long-standing relationship with Client B, the real estate manager of a large, diversified company. Broker A has acquired or disposed of twelve (12) properties for Client B over a five (5) year period. Client B asks Broker A to locate a large warehouse property to consolidate inventories from three local plants. Broker A conducts a careful evaluation of the operational and logistical needs of the plants, prepares a report of his findings for Client B, and identifies four (4) possible properties that seem to meet most of Client B’s needs. At Client B’s request, he arranges and conducts inspections of each of these properties with several operations level individuals. Two (2) of the properties were listed for sale exclusively by Broker C. After the inspections, Broker A sends Broker C a written registration letter in which he identifies Client B’s company and outlines his expectation to be paid half of any commission that might arise from a transaction on either of the properties. Broker C responds with a written denial of registration, but agrees to share any commission that results from a transaction procured by Broker A on either of the properties. Six (6) weeks after the inspections, Client B selects one of the properties and instructs Broker A to initiate negotiations with Broker C. After several weeks the negotiations reach an impasse. Two (2) weeks later, Broker A learns that Broker C has presented a proposal directly to Client B for the other property that was previously inspected. Broker A then contacts Broker C, and demands to be included in the negotiations. Broker C refuses, telling Broker A that he has “lost control of his prospect,” and will not be recognized if a transaction takes place on the second property. The negotiations proceed, ultimately resulting in a sale of the second property. Broker A files a request for arbitration against Broker C.
Analysis: This would be an arbitrable dispute as a compensation agreement existed between Broker A and Broker C. The Hearing Panel will consider Broker A’s introduction of the property to Client B, the property reports prepared by Broker A, and the time between the impasse in negotiations on the first property and the sale of the second property. If the Hearing Panel determines that Broker A initiated the series of events that led to the successful sale, Broker A will likely prevail. (Adopted 11/96)
a. "Agent" means a real estate licensee (including brokers and sales associates) acting in an agency relationship as defined by state law or regulation. (Revised 4/98)
b. “Association” means this organization, either the ___________________________________ (local) Association of Realtors® or the ___________________________ (state) Association of Realtors®. As used herein, the term “association(s)” refers to board(s) and association(s) of Realtors®. (Revised 11/17)
c. "Broker" means a real estate licensee (including brokers and sales associates) acting as an agent or in a legally recognized non-agency capacity. (Adopted 4/98)
d. "Client" means the person(s) or entity(ies) with whom a REALTORS® or a REALTOR®'s firm has an agency or legally recognized non-agency relationship. (Revised 11/97)
e. "Counsel" means an attorney at law. (Adopted 4/91)
f. "Customer" means a party to a real estate transaction who receives information, services, or benefits but has no contractual relationship with the REALTORS® or the REALTOR®'s firm. (Revised 11/97)
g. "Directors" means the Board of Directors of the Board (State Association) as interpreted by Policy Statement #33. (Revised 11/91)
h. "Electronically," "electronic means," "technology," "technological means," and related terms include, but are not limited to, the Internet, Internet-based websites, all forms of Internet communication, e-mail, facsimile correspondence, telephone, and all other forms of distance communication. (Adopted 5/06)
i. "Hearing" may refer either to an ethics hearing relating to disciplinary matters or to an arbitration hearing in which the dispute generally involves entitlement to a commission or to compensation. (Revised 11/93)
j. "Member" means REALTOR® and REALTOR-ASSOCIATE® members of this Board (State Association). REALTORS® who participate in MLS or otherwise access MLS information through any Board in which they do not hold membership are subject to the Code of Ethics in that Board. (Amended 11/95)
k. "Party" (Parties) means the complainant(s) or respondent(s) in disciplinary proceedings and in arbitration hearings referred to in Part Four and Part Ten of this Manual. (Revised 11/91)
l. "Person" means a natural person. (Adopted 11/13)
m. "Professional Standards Administrator" is the Board staff person primarily responsible for the administration of all professional standards processes. (Adopted 11/15)
n. "REALTOR® principal" includes licensed or certified individuals who are sole proprietors, partners in a partnership, officers or majority shareholders of a corporation, or office managers (including branch office managers) acting on behalf of principals of a real estate firm who subscribe to the Code of Ethics as a condition of membership in a local Board, State Association, and the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®. The phrase REALTOR® principal includes those REALTORS® who participate in a Multiple Listing Service through any Board or Association in which they do not hold membership. (Revised 5/97)
o. "Tribunal" means those persons serving in a given case on a Grievance Committee or a Hearing Panel of the Professional Standards Committee in either an ethics or arbitration proceeding, or a Board of Directors or appropriate body appointed by a Board of Directors to act in its behalf. No individual may participate in the deliberation of more than one tribunal on the same matter. (Revised 5/88)
p. "Unauthorized disclosure" means a report or publication under any circumstances not established in this Manual. (Adopted 11/91)
These Professional courtesies are intended to be used by REALTORS® on a voluntary basis, and cannot form the basis for a professional standards complaint.
Respect for the Public
- Follow the "Golden Rule”: Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.
- Respond promptly to inquiries and requests for information.
- Schedule appointments and showings as far in advance as possible.
- Call if you are delayed or must cancel an appointment or showing.
- If a prospective buyer decides not to view an occupied home, promptly explain the situation to the listing broker or the occupant.
- Communicate with all parties in a timely fashion.
- When entering a property ensure that unexpected situations, such as pets, are handled appropriately.
- Leave your business card if not prohibited by local rules.
- Never criticize property in the presence of the occupant.
- Inform occupants that you are leaving after showings.
- When showing an occupied home, always ring the doorbell or knock—and announce yourself loudly before entering. Knock and announce yourself loudly before entering any closed room.
- Present a professional appearance at all times; dress appropriately and drive a clean car.
- If occupants are home during showings, ask their permission before using the telephone or bathroom.
- Encourage the clients of other brokers to direct questions to their agent or representative.
- Communicate clearly; don’t use jargon or slang that may not be readily understood.
- Be aware of and respect cultural differences.
- Show courtesy and respect to everyone.
- Be aware of—and meet—all deadlines.
- Promise only what you can deliver—and keep your promises.
- Identify your REALTOR® and your professional status in contacts with the public.
- Do not tell people what you think—tell them what you know.
Respect for Property
- Be responsible for everyone you allow to enter listed property.
- Never allow buyers to enter listed property unaccompanied.
- When showing property, keep all members of the group together.
- Never allow unaccompanied access to property without permission.
- Enter property only with permission even if you have a lockbox key or combination.
- When the occupant is absent, leave the property as you found it (lights, heating, cooling, drapes, etc.) If you think something is amiss (e.g. vandalism), contact the listing broker immediately.
- Be considerate of the seller's property. Do not allow anyone to eat, drink, smoke, dispose of trash, use bathing or sleeping facilities, or bring pets. Leave the house as you found it unless instructed otherwise.
- Use sidewalks; if weather is bad, take off shoes and boots inside property.
- Respect sellers’ instructions about photographing or videographing their properties’ interiors or exteriors.
Respect for Peers
- Identify your REALTOR® and professional status in all contacts with other REALTORS®.
- Respond to other agents' calls, faxes, and e-mails promptly and courteously.
- Be aware that large electronic files with attachments or lengthy faxes may be a burden on recipients.
- Notify the listing broker if there appears to be inaccurate information on the listing.
- Share important information about a property, including the presence of pets, security systems, and whether sellers will be present during the showing.
- Show courtesy, trust, and respect to other real estate professionals.
- Avoid the inappropriate use of endearments or other denigrating language.
- Do not prospect at other REALTORS®' open houses or similar events.
- Return keys promptly.
- Carefully replace keys in the lockbox after showings.
- To be successful in the business, mutual respect is essential.
- Real estate is a reputation business. What you do today may affect your reputation—and business—for years to come.