Commercial real estate decisions carry long-term financial and operational implications. Yet many business leaders begin the process without fully understanding how representation structure can shape outcomes.
Dual agency — where a brokerage represents both landlords and tenants — is a legally permissible model used by many large brokerage firms. However, legality does not eliminate the practical risks that arise when obligations are shared between parties with competing interests.
This article outlines key considerations for tenants evaluating representation models.
Dual agency exists when a brokerage (or individual broker) represents both sides in a commercial real estate transaction. Firms such as JLL and CBRE frequently operate under this structure due to large landlord-representation portfolios.
In a dual-agency scenario:
For many tenants, this structure is not immediately visible — yet it directly affects negotiation outcomes.
Dual agency is permissible in many jurisdictions, including Arizona, provided that:
Regulators allow informed clients to choose neutrality if they believe it serves their interests.
However, disclosure does not resolve structural conflict.
Dual agency introduces several material risks for occupiers, particularly in competitive or complex transactions.
A broker cannot negotiate aggressively for a tenant without affecting the landlord relationship.
Result:
Negotiation posture is moderated, not optimized.
Confidential tenant strategy — budget, timing, flexibility needs — may not be fully leveraged if the landlord is also a client.
Result:
Landlords may gain insight into tenant priorities, reducing leverage.
Dual-agency firms may emphasize internal listings or existing landlord relationships.
Result:
Fewer alternatives evaluated → less pricing leverage.
Landlord relationships often drive recurring assignments and broader revenue streams.
Result:
Economic incentives may not align with tenant-only outcomes.
The impact of divided representation becomes particularly significant when:
|
Scenario |
Why It Matters |
|
Lease renewals |
Landlord has informational advantage; advocacy is critical |
|
TI / build-out negotiations |
Capital and schedules require firm leverage |
|
Portfolio expansion |
Requires unified strategy and consistency |
|
Complex facility needs |
Industrial, medical, and manufacturing space |
|
Long-term headquarters decisions |
Brand, workforce, and capital implications |
In these situations, the cost of moderated advocacy can be substantial.
Tenant-only representation eliminates divided incentives at the structural level.
This model ensures:
This creates a clear, consistent advocacy position throughout the transaction process.
At Keyser, we do not participate in dual agency.
We represent only tenants and owner-occupiers.
This commitment supports:
Our advisory model is supported by global partners, cross-market expertise, and AI-enabled market intelligence to help clients make informed decisions with clarity and confidence.
Dual agency is lawful and common in commercial real estate.
However, legality does not remove structural limitations — nor does neutrality deliver the same strategic value as dedicated advocacy.
For tenants navigating long-term commitments and complex real estate needs, understanding representation structure is fundamental to protecting economic outcomes and operational flexibility.
In high-stakes real estate decisions, clarity of alignment supports clarity of results.
If you are evaluating a lease renewal, relocation, expansion, or portfolio strategy, our team can provide an unbiased review to inform your decision — with no obligation.
Address: 6400 E. McDowell Rd, Ste. 100, Scottsdale, AZ 85257
Phone: (602) 9. KEYSER
Email: info@keyser.com
Get clarity and confidence before your next negotiation. Request your complimentary lease review here → www.keyser.com/lease-review
Q: What Are the Most Common Problems Tenants Face Under Dual Agency?
Q: How Can Tenants Avoid the Risks of Dual Agency?