Can a title-examining attorney take quit-claim deeds to other lots in a subdivision to himself, so that later owners must come to him to clear their titles for a small fee?

Plain-English summary

While examining the title to a single subdivision lot, an attorney discovered a conveyance to an individual "as agent" and a later conveyance from that individual without reference to the agency. Independent investigation identified the principals, who had ratified conveyances affecting many lots across four sizeable subdivisions. Anticipating the problem would recur, the attorney proposed, "for the convenience of local attorneys," to take a quit-claim deed from the principals and their spouses covering all the lots in all the subdivisions to himself, and then, when other examining attorneys later inquired, to deliver a further quit-claim deed directly to them or their clients, charging only the minimum fee set by the county bar association.

The committee, setting aside questions of law (whether the procedure would complicate title and the effect of Sections 689.06 through 689.071, Florida Statutes), concluded the proposed action would be improper under Canon 28 and Additional Rule 19, despite its motivation. It said the attorney could properly procure a quit-claim deed only for the lot in which his client was interested, and that the deed should run to the ultimate grantee or other appropriate party rather than to the attorney. The committee was careful to say that sharing title information among attorneys, ordinarily on an informal basis without a fee, was perfectly legitimate and that its opinion should not be read to inhibit such sharing; its objection was grounded in the attorney taking the deeds to himself in a way that would compel later interested parties to seek his services, even at a nominal fee.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in August 1966, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Canon 28 (stirring up litigation and soliciting business) and a Florida Additional Rule. Solicitation of professional employment is now governed by Rule 4-7.18 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 7.3). Subsequent rule and statutory amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules and statutes before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the attorney take the quit-claim deeds to all the lots to himself?

A: No. The committee concluded that taking the deeds to himself, so that later interested parties would have to seek his services, was improper under Canon 28 and Additional Rule 19.

Q: What could the attorney properly do for his own client?

A: The committee said he could properly procure a quit-claim deed only for the lot his client was interested in, and that the deed should run to the ultimate grantee or other appropriate party, not to the attorney.

Q: Did the opinion forbid sharing the title information he had found?

A: No. The committee said sharing such information among attorneys, ordinarily informally and without a fee, was perfectly legitimate, and it did not want its opinion read to inhibit that.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canon 28, which barred stirring up litigation or soliciting business, together with a Florida Additional Rule. The concern about manufacturing a chokepoint that forces others to retain the lawyer maps today to Rule 4-7.18 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar on solicitation; the Model Rule analogue is Rule 7.3. The committee expressly treated the title-law questions, and the effect of Sections 689.06 through 689.071, Florida Statutes, as matters of law outside its jurisdiction.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 28; Additional Rule 19 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rule 4-7.18]

Statutes:

• Sections 689.06 through 689.071, Florida Statutes (conveyances; noted as questions of law)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 66-72: Lawyers and Credit Bureaus
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 66-75: Firm Joining a Civic Council

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-66-46/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-66-46.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 66-46
August 15, 1966
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An attorney, who in the course of a title examination has ascertained information essential to the clearing of the title to one lot in a subdivision, may not use such information for the purpose of obtaining a quit claim deed to other lots from other parties to himself, with the intention of issuing quit claim deeds to parties subsequently needing to clear titles to other lots in the subdivision. This is so even though such procedure would be for the convenience of other attorneys in the locality and only a minimum fee would be charged for the preparation of the quit claim deed.
Canons: 28, Additional Rule 19
Statutes: F.S. 689.06-689.071
Chairman MacDonald stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar advises that in the course of a title examination of a single lot of a subdivision he has discovered in the chain of title a conveyance to an individual "as agent" and a subsequent conveyance from that individual, joined by his spouse, without reference to agency.
Investigation independent of the public records of the county in question disclosed that other individuals residing in another county were in fact the principals of the agent and had ratified not only the subsequent conveyance from the agent in the chain in which the attorney is interested, but other lots in four sizeable subdivisions in the same county. The attorney in connection with his examination of the title accordingly procured an affidavit reciting the foregoing. Beyond this, he has been informed that it will be necessary to procure an affidavit from the former agent identifying and confirming the identity of the principals, and a quit claim deed from the principals and their spouses.
Seemingly, because of the size of the subdivision, the problem is apt to occur again. We are not, however, told of the particular relationship of the conveyances in question to the current ownership of record, or the actual possession of the land. Nevertheless, the inquirer "for the convenience of local attorneys" proposes to obtain a quit claim deed from the principals to all of the lots in all of the subdivisions in which the agent acted, joined by their spouses, to himself. He then proposes when an inquiry is subsequently made by other examining attorneys to him, to deliver to them or their clients a further quit claim deed direct to them, "charging only the then minimum fee set by our county bar association for the preparation of such deed."
With perception the attorney raises the question whether this course of action would be violative of Canon 28 or Additional Rule 19. Laying aside the question whether the proposed procedure would not in fact complicate the title of the land, and the possible applicability of Sections 689.06 through 689.071, Florida Statutes, as questions of law beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee, we nevertheless conclude that the proposed action, despite its motivation, would be improper under the very authorities cited by the inquirer. We believe in this instance the attorney may properly only procure the quit claim deed to the lot in which his client is interested and that such quit claim deed should not run to the attorney. We suggest that it would be more appropriate for the deed to run to the ultimate grantee or other appropriate party.
Needless to say, as in many title problems presenting perennial problems to members of the title bar, it is perfectly legitimate to share information of the type procured by the inquirer. Ordinarily, such sharing is done on an informal basis among attorneys without particular reference to a fee, and we would not wish our opinion to be construed as precluding or inhibiting such sharing of information in this instance. Instead, our objection to the conduct is necessarily grounded in the taking of the deed by the attorney to lands possibly occupied by others in situations which would compel subsequent parties interested in the properties to seek his services, even on the nominal basis described. This, in our judgment, is clearly proscribed by Canon 28 and Additional Rule 19.