My, but aren't the anonymous ones coming out in droves. And with such enlightening comments, too! Let's get a bit more specific, with our links, to help consumers understand what's really at hand...
This one's about the problems with Designated Agency, which my efforts kept out of the State of Wisconsin the first time it was put forward by the Wisconsin Realtors Association:
This one if from the failed 2005 effort, where the fix was pretty much in from day one:
Had my federal antitrust lawsuit to break the tie between my local board and multiple listing service been successful, the intent was to reform the abusive aspects of realtor procuring cause, injunctively. The ones that trap buyers and restrain buyer agent trade. That suit went to the doorstep of the Supreme Court of the United States and was denied Certiorari, just like 98 percent of all cases appealing for a hearing before SCOTUS.
By now, anyone interested has seen http://www.real-reform.org/pc.pdf
Here's a link to an interesting eBook by my former antitrust attorney, David Barry:
It won't be favored by many of the "agency law experts" who frequent these forums, but I can tell just from reading the comments in this thread that very few of you have any understanding of common sense, common law agency--and concepts like implied agency--or how terribly conflict of interest ridden and disclosure deficient the concepts of designated agency and procuring cause are.
But, that's okay. The things I write, I don't write for you. I write them for consumers, and have received many, many thanks...and many, many clients, as a result of the things I have said/done over the course of the past twenty years.
In closing, just let me tell you how much the general attacks on my writing have amused me. Like so many who have gone before you--I've been out here speaking my piece on the internet since 1995--your attacks are without specificity.
Or when you do get specific, you are so far off the mark that engaging in conversation with you about the subject matter would take far more time than what I have available, as your foundation of knowledge is woefully inadequate. Try learning about the common law of agency and also about trust law. (Not trust ACCOUNT law...TRUST LAW.)
These two bodies of law are the wellspring from which client/agent relationships have flowed, from times which predate the founding of this nation. They are based on common sense principles, unlike the sales-based and liability reducing principles of Designated Agency. All you apologists can do, is argue from the standpoint of self interest, the Raison d'Etre of Designated Agency. You do not know what it means to labor to a higher standard...that of the common law of agency, where the interests of the client must be put ahead of all others...including those of the agent/firm.
That, however, is an idea which I'm sure is like Kryptonite to certain "heroes" of this conversation thread.