Marie... I'm not sure what you consider "standard questions," but here are a few that might be considered a bit "off the wall." Describe the personality of your firm... if it were an animal what sort of animal would it be and why? Describe your best agents... what sort of characteristics do they have and what are they doing? (You could ask the same about the worst ones.) What is your long term plan? What sort of firm do you see this being in five years? ten years? How will I be supervised? How much latitude do I have in deciding how to work with clients? Do you anticipate making any major changes to your company's policy in the near future? What do you see as the strengths of your company for consumers? for your licensees? Basically, you have to think of yourself as interviewing the company... find some good interview questions and adapt them. One consideration is obviously who you will be interviewing with... ideally get to the broker--more and more brokers are relying on office assistants who won't necessarily know the answers to good probing questions. I can tell you what keeps me where I am, but you need to figure out what is important to you and develop questions that will get information about that. For me, it's all about working environment and independence, but that's because of my situation.

Greg, I think that's closer to the mark than most. But you do want to be careful about what you say you are going to do for them. This has traditionally been a high-risk business where we assume all the risks, the client takes very few, really. That's not a business I want to be in.

Your first paragraph reveals an erroneous assumption. My first post was not made to start a debate with you. This is a forum. I posted thinking that is different from yours so that others would have an opportunity to think about the topic and make their own informed decision. That is the value of a forum. Forums aren't intended to establish who is right. I fully intend to continue to practice (and teach pre licensing courses) the way I do. I do hope others who read this forum will give careful consideration to what they disclose when. I would also suggest that in a particularly difficult situation, licensees consult with a qualified attorney. Note also that not all attorneys will agree. One of the better attorneys I know says, "we can't always know the right answer until every phrase in every contract and document has been litigated." The most difficult controversies end up being decided in court--not on an Internet forum. One will not avoid court by thinking one is an attorney--even if he or she owns a Black's Law Dictionary. Laws regarding any topic will often conflict and part of the difficulty is deciding which law will trump another. Disclosures in the real estate business are just not always that simple. In my experience "loose lips" cause more problems than careful consideration.

I have no desire to play attorney and debate this endlessly... Partly because we are obviously on very different pages and I don't think you are understanding my point. I will repeat again, I am not against honesty. I understand good faith and fair dealings. However, you are stating a generality and it seems to me offering the legal opinion that licensees will not get into trouble if they "tell everything." That is your opinion and you are welcome to it... but not every one (including judges) will agree with you in every situation. "Telling everything" does not automatically equate to good faith and fair dealings. Ultimately this question will be resolved in court, not on a forum. We also need to remember that criminal and civil court are going to be different... and that the licensing authority in most states has the ability to create and enforce their own rules. My point was and is that licensees need to think hard and careful before just simply "telling everything." I'm not sure why you disagree with that. For example, Maine has no law requiring the disclosure of stigmatized property. If I list such a property and the seller client instructs me not to reveal the stigma I would certainly discuss with the seller the merits of disclosing versus not disclosing. If after that discussion the seller still instructs me NOT to disclose, I'd better not offer that information ("tell everything") to a buyer who is not my client. (Maine also makes important distinctions between clients and customers.) I would, however, need also to tell my seller client that should I be asked about the stigma I must reply honesty to direct questions regarding items I "know and should have known." Offering the information after being instructed not to would be a problem - answering a question honestly would not. It's not really that complicated, but it can't be oversimplified.

Sorry, but I am not looking at "one small corner" of the facts. I also am not recommending dishonesty, nor did I say "only do your fiduciary duties." I am not suggesting hiding things. Quite frankly I am thoroughly disgusted with the dishonesty and self-serving practice that pervades this industry. I am suggesting simply that just "being honest and telling everything" will not keep the agent out of trouble. Your recommendation to disclose everything would not be a lawful response under several conditions in the state I practice in. I agree that there is a large body of law to deal with... but your generality is simply not true in every state and in every situation. This is also one of the examples I'm thinking of... are you qualified to advise licensees in every state to "tell it like it is?" Perhaps honesty would require an acknowledgement that you are not intimately familiar with real estate law in all 50 states. Note that I said "could be wrong" not "would be wrong." I can tell you this: if an agent practices in my state using the "tell everything" advice you seem to be offering, he or she will eventually end up in court. Perhaps you would be willing to defend him or her when the time comes. Personally, I'd rather not end up there in the first place. Not understanding the law, fidiciuary duty, agency, etc. will create a lot more of a mess than giving thoughtful, accurate responses. This post was edited by Walter Boomsma at February 26, 2012 4:44:34 AM MST