Analysis of the bill regulating real estate brokerage and misleading advertising
Special for El Inmobiliario
By Ana Bello
The bill regulating real estate brokerage represents progress: it professionalizes a sector that drives a significant portion of GDP and is plagued by irregular practices. However, it's worth tempering the enthusiasm with which some are celebrating that "lawyers will need a license for real estate transactions": this statement is inaccurate and stems from ambiguous wording that must be corrected.
The project itself excludes legal work. Article 3, sections 2 and 3, excludes legal advice from professionals and transactions by agents. Article 19 reiterates that providing legal services related to the drafting, preparation, and negotiation of transfer agreements does not constitute intermediation. The lawyer who structures the transaction and verifies the property's status is not acting as an intermediary.
The friction arises in the paragraph of Article 19, which requires lawyers to register as agents when performing the activities outlined in Article 18: promotion, advertising, client acquisition, and supply and demand management. The problem is that Article 18, paragraph 3, includes "negotiation," a term that also describes part of legal advice. This is where the ambiguity lies: the line between advising and mediating becomes blurred.
The exequatur and specialization in Real Estate and Registry Law guarantee the legal security of the transaction; a function distinct from brokerage, which brings supply and demand together in exchange for a commission. The exequatur does not make the lawyer a broker, nor should it require an additional license; but the degree also does not authorize them to market other people's properties and charge a commission: when they act in this way, they are functionally acting as a broker. The solution is not to exempt them based on their degree, but to define the scope of their function. Imposing a license for their mere advisory role would also infringe upon the freedom of enterprise enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution.
Comparative law confirms this view. In the United States, licensing is regulated on a state-by-state basis: California exempts lawyers when the activity is part of their legal services; Texas maintains a broader exemption. Spain liberalized intermediation with Royal Decree-Law 4/2000, but since 2010 several autonomous communities (Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearic Islands, and, since 2025, Andalusia) have created mandatory registries with requirements for training, insurance, and guarantees. The Dominican Republic is following this path; its problem lies not in the principle, but in the wording.
What's missing from the bill? First, a clear definition of the line between legal practice and intermediation, specifying that negotiation ancillary to a legal service is excluded. Second, a requirement for mandatory professional liability insurance, currently absent from the text. Third, rules for disclosing dual representation and conflicts of interest. Fourth, specific hours of continuing education. And fifth, providing the General Directorate of Real Estate Registration, Control, and Intermediation with independence and real resources, with an accessible public registry.
In short, the project's objective—legal certainty, transparency, and consumer protection—is sound. What it requires is legislative technique: distinguishing between the legal professional, who provides legal safeguards, and the broker, who acts as a commercial intermediary. As long as this boundary remains ambiguous, the opportunity to build a framework that, far from pitting professions against each other, integrates them to the benefit of both investment and the buyer will be lost.
Content originally published in issue 15 of El Inmobiliario print edition.
Recommended readings:
