This piece is about the "why" of double popping deals. Not whether it is legal in your state or what form to use.
Yes, "whether it is legal in your state" is correct. If it is not legal in your state you do not have an ethical quandary on your hands — dual agency is banned in many states. But for everyone else, read on.
Representing both the buyer and the seller on a transaction is known in industry lingo by a number of colorful terms. Double popping is the term I like most but double dipping and dual agency are also commonly used.
The topic makes me feel awkward, anxious and slightly dirty. I am writing about it this week because I think I am going to have to do it for one of my listings. Which is taking too long to sell and my job is to sell it so I may have to represent my seller and a buyer.
And it makes me feel uncomfortable because there is definitely a negative connotation to doing it. The feelings it brings up in me are a mix of “getting caught spending too much time in the bathroom” and “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
It is a Tool
The pro argument is straightforward. Sometimes a listing is dead in the water. Sixty days on market, low showings, a frustrated seller. A buyer walks in without an agent and wants to write an offer. If I send them out the door to find representation, the momentum dies and the deal may never come back. Double popping in that moment is not greed. It is getting it done.
The parties are in alignment. The seller gets a deal. The buyer gets a house. The agent earns both sides of the commission because the agent did both sides of the work.
The argument against is just as honest.
When the parties are not in alignment and we represent both sides, agents lose the ability to negotiate aggressively for either one. You know the seller will take $50,000 less but you cannot tell the buyer that. You know the buyer will pay $30,000 more but you cannot tell the seller that.
We are holding the key to the deal in both hands and you cannot use either one. Research backs this up: properties sold through a dual agent tend to sell faster, but for less money.
The efficiency gain is real but the price is that nobody in the transaction has someone fighting exclusively for their corner anymore. That is the tradeoff and it is not trivial.
Office Chatter
Early in my career I remember more experienced agents gossiping about another agent who double popped as many deals as they had listings. The gossiping agent’s opinions mattered to me. Dual representation was a definite “no” in that circle. I began to experience the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon; double popping was everywhere.
Success breeds speculation in real estate offices. There is always someone who seems to double pop everything. You hear the whispers and wonder if they set themselves up for it from the first listing appointment.
That agent is probably not breaking any rules. But the pattern alone changes how you see them. The question is not whether it is legal. The question is what it says about their judgment when the default answer is always yes to keeping both sides.
Hearing about another agent doing it is one thing. Doing it yourself changes the perspective entirely.
Double Popping in Practice
I remember the first time I double popped a deal. It was not planned. A buyer called me directly on my listing that had been sitting for weeks. They had no agent. They liked the house. They wanted to write an offer. I walked through the disclosure package with them and sat down to write the agreement.
It felt necessary in the moment. It felt wrong afterward. Not because anyone complained. Because I knew I could have gotten the seller more money if I had been pushing against a buyer's agent. And I knew I could have gotten the buyer a better price if I had been pushing against the listing agent. Instead, I was pushing against nobody. I was just moving paper.
Rationalization
I received a sticky note on my check with a backhanded compliment from my sales manager. Then I saw the commission check and suddenly understood why people had such strong feelings about the process. Twice the money for almost the same amount of work.
The rationalization starts immediately. One deal instead of two to make the same money. Fewer agents to coordinate. Less chance of a cooperating broker dropping the ball. The logic is seductive. "Of course, I could do it better than another agent."
The danger is that it becomes the default instead of the exception. The first double pop might be triage. The fifth one is a choice. At some point you stop asking whether it is necessary and start thinking it is better for your client.
That is where the ethical line gets blurry.
The Erosion
You start steering every unrepresented buyer toward your own listings instead of looking for other properties that might be more suitable. You start structuring your business around keeping the commission whole instead of delivering the best advocacy.
The seller who agrees to dual agency thinks you are still working for them. They do not know what they gave up because nobody told them in concrete terms. They signed a form. They trusted you. That is not a failure of disclosure. That is a failure of honesty.
In California, the state requires written disclosure of dual agency through the C.A.R. Form AD — Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationship, and the law says agents must provide it before the client makes an offer. But a signed form is not the same thing as an informed client.
And the thing about erosion is that you do not feel it happening. The first double pop keeps you up at night. The tenth one does not register. You stopped noticing because you stopped asking the hard question. Not whether it is legal. Whether it is right.
That is not a business model. That is a slow erosion of trust that you may not notice until someone files a complaint or a client figures out what they missed. By then the damage is done and you are the one who did it.
Enter (or exit) Ethics
The agency disclosure form is the first document a client signs. It explains dual agency. It spells out what changes. Both parties sign it. Everything is legal.
That form is where ethics enters the conversation. It is also where ethics can exit.
If you hand the form over, watch them sign, and move on, you have done what the law requires. The form did the talking. You are covered. Ethics exited the moment you did not explain what actually changes for them.
If you sit with them instead and walk through what actually changes, what they lose, and why it matters, you have done something the form cannot do. You did your best to explain what changed and ethics has returned.
Conflicted
23 years in to the business and I still don’t have a clean answer. I think conflicted is the right place to sit.
