When buyer and seller are on genuinely good terms, perhaps even friends or relatives, it can seem needlessly expensive and repetitive to each engage a separate conveyancing lawyer for the same transaction. This guide explains why Singapore’s rules generally do not allow this, and what actually happens instead.
The Short Answer: Generally, No
A single law firm cannot act for both the buyer and the seller in the same property transaction in Singapore. This is not a matter of convenience or preference. It reflects a genuine conflict of interest built into the nature of a property sale, where the buyer and seller have opposing financial interests, even when the transaction itself is entirely amicable.
Why This Conflict of Interest Actually Exists
A conveyancing lawyer’s job is to protect their specific client’s interests throughout the transaction: negotiating and reviewing terms, checking the title is clean, calculating figures correctly, and flagging anything that could disadvantage their client. The buyer wants the lowest possible price, the cleanest possible title, and protection against any hidden issues with the property. The seller wants the highest possible price, a smooth completion, and protection against the buyer trying to renegotiate or delay. A single lawyer cannot genuinely advocate for both of these positions at once, no matter how good their intentions, which is exactly why professional conduct rules generally prevent a firm from acting for both sides.
What Each Side’s Lawyer Actually Does Differently
The buyer’s lawyer reviews the Option to Purchase, conducts title and other searches to confirm the property is free of undisclosed issues, coordinates with the buyer’s bank if financing is involved, and manages the transfer of funds and registration of the buyer’s ownership. The seller’s lawyer reviews the same option from the seller’s side, prepares the documents needed to transfer title, calculates and arranges the return of any CPF used toward the property along with accrued interest, and settles any outstanding mortgage on the seller’s behalf. These are genuinely different bodies of work, each requiring loyalty to a different party’s interests.
Even Friendly or Family Transactions Are Not Exempt
It is a common misconception that the conflict of interest rule only matters for transactions between strangers who do not trust each other, and that friends, colleagues, or family members transacting together should be free to save money by sharing a lawyer. The rule generally applies regardless of the relationship between buyer and seller, since the potential for conflict exists in the structure of the transaction itself, not in how well the parties happen to get along at the time of signing.
What You Can Do Instead to Keep Costs Reasonable
If cost is the main reason you were considering sharing a lawyer, there are more appropriate ways to manage this. You can ask each lawyer directly for a competitive, transparent fixed-fee quote, since conveyancing is a fairly standardised and price-competitive area of legal practice in Singapore. For a straightforward, uncomplicated transaction between parties who trust each other, some firms may also be willing to offer a more streamlined, lower-cost service reflecting the reduced complexity, without compromising the fundamental requirement of separate representation.
What Happens If a Firm Agrees to Act for Both Sides Anyway
If you come across a firm willing to act for both buyer and seller in the same transaction, this should be treated as a significant warning sign rather than a convenient shortcut. A firm behaving this way is either unaware of, or disregarding, professional conduct obligations that exist specifically to protect clients, and this raises real questions about how carefully the rest of your transaction will be handled. It is worth verifying any firm’s standing and reputation carefully if this situation arises.
Trust Between the Parties Does Not Remove the Need for Separate Advice
Even where buyer and seller trust each other completely, each party benefits from having someone whose sole job is to look out for their specific interests and flag anything unusual, however unlikely a problem might seem at the outset. A title issue, an unexpected encumbrance, or a miscalculated figure can surface in even the most amicable transaction, and having your own lawyer specifically watching for these issues on your behalf is valuable regardless of how much you trust the other party personally.
The One Exception Worth Knowing About: HDB’s Own Legal Service
For HDB resale transactions financed through an HDB loan, buyers have the option of using HDB’s own in-house legal service to handle the conveyancing, rather than engaging a private lawyer. This is a distinct situation from a private firm acting for both sides, since HDB’s legal service operates within its own specific framework for these transactions, though it is worth understanding that this service is not the same as having a lawyer acting exclusively and personally in your interest the way a private conveyancing lawyer would.
How to Approach This as Either Buyer or Seller
Rather than trying to save money by sharing representation, focus your cost-consciousness on comparing quotes properly between different firms, asking clearly what each quote includes, and choosing a lawyer genuinely experienced in the specific type of transaction you are undertaking. This protects your interests properly while still allowing you to manage costs sensibly, which is a far better trade-off than accepting reduced protection in exchange for a modest saving.
What This Means Practically for Your Timeline
Engaging two separate lawyers does not necessarily mean your transaction takes twice as long or becomes twice as complicated to coordinate. In practice, the two lawyers communicate directly with each other on the procedural aspects of the transaction, exchanging documents and confirming details, so as buyer or seller you are not personally responsible for bridging that communication yourself. Understanding this upfront can ease any worry that separate representation will make an already significant transaction feel more fragmented than it needs to.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the buyer’s lawyer and the seller’s lawyer be from the same larger firm, just different departments or branches?
This generally still raises the same conflict of interest concern, since the underlying issue is about representing opposing interests in the same transaction, regardless of internal firm structure, so most firms will decline to act for both sides even through different individual lawyers within the same practice.
Is it acceptable for the buyer and seller to share the cost of a single lawyer even if that lawyer only formally represents one side?
This arrangement can raise its own concerns about who the lawyer’s actual duty of loyalty lies with, so it is generally clearer and safer for each party to engage and pay for their own lawyer, even if informal cost-sharing conversations happen separately between the buyer and seller themselves.
Does the conflict of interest rule apply the same way to commercial property transactions as it does to residential ones?
Yes, the same underlying conflict of interest principle applies to property transactions generally, regardless of whether the property is residential or commercial, since the opposing financial interests between buyer and seller exist in either context.
What should I do if I am buying a property directly from a family member and we both assumed one lawyer would be simplest?
It is worth having this conversation early with any conveyancing lawyer you approach, since they will explain why separate representation is required, and this is a normal, expected part of the process rather than something to feel awkward about raising with a relative.
Can a lawyer who previously acted for the seller later act for the buyer in a completely separate, later transaction involving the same property?
This is generally permissible, since the conflict of interest concern relates specifically to acting for opposing sides within the same transaction, not to having any prior connection to the property at all, though it is still worth disclosing any such history to a new client for transparency.
Thank you for sharing this article...
About the Author: Randy Alta
