A and B were from the same firm and acted in a property transaction relating to the transfer of the parents’ home to their son, with B representing all parties and Lawyer A certifying the transfer of the property. The purchase price was $900,000 and the parents signed a certificate of gifting which gave the son $480,500, being the parents’ equity in the home. The parents claimed they thought the son was being added to the title only and were agreeing to the purchase because the son would look after them at the home in their retirement, stating they did not understand the nature of the gift. Initially one of the parents refused to provide an independent legal advice waiver to the lawyers, but after intervention from the son this was provided the day before settlement. Following settlement, the relations between the son and his parents broke down and the parents were forced to leave the home. 

The parents complained that A and B took instructions to carry out the sale of real estate in circumstances where there was more than a negligible risk of being in a conflict of interest between the parties and that they carried out their obligations with gross negligence. 

The Committee considered that both A and B had breached rule 3 by failing to act competently and rule 6.1 by acting for both parties to the transaction where there was a more than negligible chance of a conflict of interest.  A was censured and ordered to pay a fine, compensation and costs.  B was fined and ordered to pay costs.