Under what circumstances can a lawyer act for both clients and the bank despite a potential conflict of interest?

• A. If there is a substantially common interest and consent, and the arrangement is reasonable and in the clients' best interests (for example a standard mortgage for private residence) with an approved title certificate form.
• B. If the clients sign a waiver.
• C. Never allowed.
• D. Only if the property is commercial.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is managing a potential conflict of interest through informed consent. A lawyer normally should not represent both the borrower and the bank because their interests can diverge. The way this can be permissible is if all parties sign a written waiver agreeing to the arrangement after being fully informed about the risks and implications. That signed waiver shows that each client understands the conflict and still wants the same lawyer to act for both sides, with the lawyer continuing to uphold their professional duties. This written consent is the mechanism that allows dual representation in this context. Other options either describe situations that aren’t the standard basis for allowing dual representation, suggest it’s never allowed, or restrict it to specific property types, which isn’t the framework here.