Ethics Newsletter

December 2018

ARTICLE 15 – PART 1: Knowing or Reckless False Statements About Competitors

The Complaint:

REALTOR® A operated a residential brokerage firm in a highly competitive market area. He frequently used information from the MLS as the basis for comparative ads and to keep close track of his listing and sales activity as well as his competition. One day, while reviewing MLS data and comparing it to a competitor’s ad, REALTOR® A noticed that REALTOR® Z had used a diagram to demonstrate his market share, contrasting it with those of several other firms. The ad showed that REALTOR® A had listed 10% of the properties in the MLS over the past three months. REALTOR® A thought this was low. His analysis of MLS data showed his market share was 11%. REALTOR® A filed an ethics complaint against REALTOR® Z citing Article 15 of the Code of Ethics in that REALTOR® Z’s "obviously understated market share claim" was a "misleading statement about competitors." REALTOR® A’s complaint was considered by the Grievance Committee which determined that an ethics hearing should be held.

The Hearing:

At the hearing, REALTOR® Z testified he had always been truthful in his advertising and that all claims were based in fact. He produced an affidavit from the Board’s MLS administrator which indicated that a programming error had resulted in miscalculations and, after careful recomputation, REALTOR® A’s market share over the past three months had been 10.9%. The administrator’s statement noted that this was the first time that information related to REALTOR® A’s listings or sales had been misstated on the system. "I relied on information from the MLS. It’s always been accurate and I had no reason to even suspect it was wrong last month," said REALTOR® Z in his defense.

The Conclusion:

The Hearing Panel agreed with REALTOR® Z’s logic, noting that a REALTOR® should be able to rely on generally accurate information from reliable sources. They reasoned that if, on the other hand, the MLS had shown REALTOR® A having, for example, 1% of the market, then REALTOR® Z’s reliance on the information would have been "reckless" because REALTOR® A had generally had a 10–15% market share and a reasonable conclusion would have been that the information from the MLS was seriously flawed. The Hearing Panel concluded that REALTOR® Z’s comparison with his competitors, while slightly inaccurate, was based on usually accurate and reliable information and had been made in good faith and while technically "misleading," had not been "knowing" or "reckless". REALTOR® Z was found not to have violated Article 15.

ARTICLE 15 – PART 2: Intentional Misrepresentation of a Competitor’s Business Practices

The Complaint:

Following a round of golf early one morning, Homeowner A approached REALTOR® X. "We’ve outgrown our home and I want to list it with you," said Homeowner A. "I’m sorry," said REALTOR® X, "but I represent buyers exclusively." "Then how about REALTOR® Z?," asked Homeowner A, "I’ve heard good things about him." "I don’t know if I would do that," said REALTOR® X, "while he does represent sellers, he exempts his listings and doesn’t cooperate with buyer brokers and, as a result, sellers don’t get adequate market exposure for their properties."

Later that day, Homeowner A repeated REALTOR® X’s remarks to his wife who happened to be a close friend of REALTOR® Z’s wife. Within hours, REALTOR® Z had been made aware of REALTOR® X’s remarks to Homeowner A earlier in the day. REALTOR® Z filed a complaint against REALTOR® X charging him with making false and misleading statements. REALTOR® Z’s complaint was considered by the Grievance Committee which determined that an ethics hearing should be held.

The Hearing:

At the hearing REALTOR® Z stated, "I have no idea what REALTOR® X was thinking about when he made his comments to Homeowner A. I always cooperated with other REALTORS®." REALTOR® X replied, "That’s not so. Last year you had a listing on Mayflower and when I called to make an appointment to show the property to the buyer, you refused to agree to pay me." REALTOR® Z responded that he had listed Mayflower and that the seller requested it be exempt from the MLS. Therefore, no offer of compensation was extended to buyer agents through the MLS or otherwise. He noted, however, that the fact that he had not made a blanket offer of compensation to buyer agents should not be construed as a refusal to cooperate and that he had, in fact, cooperated with REALTOR® X in the sale of that very property.

In response to REALTOR® Z’s questions, REALTOR® X acknowledged that he had shown his buyer-client REALTOR® Z’s listing and that the buyer had purchased the property. Moreover, REALTOR® X said, upon questioning by the panel members, he had no personal knowledge of any instance in which REALTOR Z had refused to cooperate with any other broker but had simply assumed that REALTOR® Z’s refusal to pay the compensation REALTOR® X had asked for was representative of a general practice on the part of REALTOR® Z.

The Conclusion:

The Hearing Panel, in its deliberations, noted that cooperation and compensation are not synonymous and though formal, blanket offers of cooperation and compensation can be communicated through Multiple Listing Services, even where they are not, cooperation remains the norm expected of REALTORS®. However, to characterize REALTOR® Z’s refusal to pay requested compensation as a "refusal to cooperate" and to make the assumption and subsequent statement that REALTOR® Z "did not cooperate with buyer agents" was false, misleading, and not based on factual information. Consequently, REALTOR® X was found in violation of Article 15.


Real-life situations to help agents better understand The Code. Each month, the Professional Standards Department will bring you an Article of the Code of Ethics and an example of a case file related to that Article.

These interpretations of the Code of Ethics present specific situations involving charges of alleged unethical conduct by REALTORS®, which are reviewed by a peer panel of Association Members and in which decisions as to ethical conduct are reached. Each case provides the Hearing Panel’s decision based on the facts and the rationale for the decision.


RED (Rapid Ethics Delivery)

There are times when our REALTOR® complaint process can feel too cumbersome or difficult to understand. The requirements of paperwork and attending the hearing tend to overshadow the feeling of wanting to be heard or wanting assistance in fixing the problem.

Sometimes disputes just need a facilitated conversation to get both parties on the same page. Our RED (Rapid Ethics Delivery) Program offers an attempt at resolution between the parties in conflict.

Our RED Program is used when you have attempted to contact an agent to resolve an issue and are not getting any cooperation from the offending agent but you are not yet ready to file a formal complaint.

If you believe that a PWR member has acted inappropriately and may be in violation of a Code of Ethics and/or MLS Rule, prior to filing a Formal Disciplinary Complaint you, (the "Reporting Party"), can report the matter to PWR and that member (the "Offending Party") may be put on notice. RED does not impose any formal fines or charges unless certain criteria are met.

Q: How do you report a violation?
A: To report a violation, the Reporting Party completes the RED Questionnaire found on PWR’s website.

Q: What will PWR do with the report?
A: When PWR receives a completed RED Questionnaire, the Professional Standards Department may contact the Offending Party and his or her broker to let them know that there is reason to believe the Offending Party is in violation of the COE and/or MLS Rules.

Q: How does the Offending Party defend itself?
A: When contacted by PWR, the Offending Party will have the opportunity to submit a written response to the alleged violations. The response will tell the Offending Party’s version of what took place.

Q: What if the Offending Party doesn’t respond, either satisfactorily or at all?
A: If the Offending Party doesn’t respond satisfactorily or at all, PWR will strongly encourage the Reporting Party to file a Formal Disciplinary Complaint. If appropriate, PWR may refer the matter to PWR’s Grievance Committee, who may file a Formal Disciplinary Complaint.

Q: What if the Responding Party wants to file a Formal Disciplinary Complaint anonymously?
A: The Reporting Party may stay anonymous if the facts of the alleged violation meet certain criteria. If they do, PWR may ask the Grievance Committee to act as the Complainant in a Formal Disciplinary Complaint.

Q: Will violations be tracked?
A: PWR will track all reported violations through the RED Program. If there is a pattern of violations, the complaints may be sent to the Grievance Committee to file a Formal Disciplinary Complaint.

Q: How long does it take to process a Red Complaint?
A: It depends on the type of issue that is in violation. Generally, you will know within 2 days to 2 weeks if filing a RED Complaint will resolve your complaint.

If you have any questions about our RED Program, please contact Lori Smith with PWR directly at (714) 245-5525 or e-mail: