Can Buyer and Seller Use the Same Solicitor?

The short answer is sometimes, but with important conditions attached. Property transactions in England and Wales usually involve two separate solicitors, one for the buyer and one for the seller, because the whole point of independent legal advice is protecting each party's individual interests. Yet in certain situations, using the same solicitor or the same firm for both sides of a sale is allowed, and can even save money and speed things up.

Before deciding whether shared representation is right for your transaction, it helps to separate two very different questions that get conflated online. The first is whether one individual solicitor can advise both the buyer and the seller on the same deal. The second is whether the same firm can act for both parties, using two different solicitors working under one roof. These carry very different risk profiles, and this guide explains both clearly so you can make the right call for your situation.

Three scenarios compared

• Same individual solicitor for both sides: almost never permitted. A single solicitor cannot advise two parties with opposing interests in the same negotiation, as this creates an unmanageable conflict of interest under professional conduct rules.
• Same firm, different solicitors for each side: possible, but only under strict conditions including informed consent from both parties, information barriers between the two solicitors, and no identified conflict of interest.
• Same solicitor for your own simultaneous buy and sell: completely normal and standard practice. If you are selling one property and buying another at the same time, using one firm to handle both transactions is common, efficient, and carries no conflict of interest because you are the client on both sides.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority sets the professional conduct rules that govern whether a solicitor or firm can act for both the buyer and seller in a property transaction. The relevant provisions sit within the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, specifically paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2, which deal with conflicts of interest.

In plain English, paragraph 6.1 addresses what is known as a client conflict: a situation where a firm acts for two or more clients whose interests conflict, or are likely to conflict, on a particular matter. In a typical house sale, the buyer wants the lowest price and the most favourable terms, while the seller wants the opposite. That is a client conflict by definition, which is why the rule generally prevents one solicitor acting for both.

Paragraph 6.2 covers what is called an own-interest conflict, where the solicitor's or firm's own interests, such as fee income from handling both sides, might compromise their duty to act in each client's best interests.

A firm must decline to act for both parties where a client conflict exists and cannot be managed, which is the default position in most open-market sales. However, a firm may accept instructions from both parties in narrower circumstances, typically where the parties are not negotiating against each other, where informed written consent is obtained from both sides, and where effective safeguards separate the two solicitors handling the file.

Once a firm has established that no client conflict exists, or that any conflict can be properly managed, it may agree to act for both the buyer and the seller using two different solicitors within the same office. This is different from one individual acting for both sides, and it comes with a specific set of conditions that must all be satisfied before the firm can proceed.

Conditions that must be met

• No client conflict identified: the firm must be satisfied at the outset that the parties are not in genuine opposition, typically because price and terms are already agreed.
• Informed written consent: both the buyer and the seller must confirm in writing that they understand and accept the firm is acting for both sides.
• Separate solicitors within the firm: one named solicitor handles the buyer's file and a different named solicitor handles the seller's file, rather than one person managing both.
• Information barriers (Chinese walls): the two solicitors must keep client information confidential from each other, which in a small firm can mean physically separate offices or, at minimum, strict internal protocols preventing informal file sharing.
• Ongoing conflict checks: the firm must keep monitoring the transaction, because a conflict that did not exist at the start can emerge later, for example if a survey uncovers a defect and the parties start negotiating a price reduction.

Common scenarios where it works

• Private sales between parties who already agree: where the price and terms are settled before solicitors are even instructed, there is little left to negotiate.
• Family transfers: a sale from parent to child, or between spouses, where the transaction is really about completing paperwork rather than negotiating a deal.
• Low-value transactions: where the cost of instructing two separate firms would be disproportionate to the value of the property or transaction.

If a genuine conflict emerges at any point, for example a dispute over completion date or a repair cost, the firm must stop acting for one party immediately. That party then needs to instruct a new solicitor, often at short notice and sometimes at extra cost. If this happens to you, our guide on changing your conveyancing solicitor explains how to switch without losing progress on your file.

For the majority of property transactions, using separate solicitors for the buyer and the seller remains the safer and more common choice. Independent representation exists precisely because buyers and sellers want different outcomes, and a solicitor who only has to think about one client's interests can negotiate, advise, and flag problems more freely.

• Open-market sales: the most common scenario by far. When a property is marketed and sold to an unrelated buyer, price negotiation, survey results, and completion timing are all genuinely contested points that need independent advice on each side.
• Any transaction involving negotiation: if price, repairs, fixtures and fittings, or completion dates are still up for discussion, a shared solicitor cannot advise both sides without a conflict arising.
• Unequal bargaining power: where one party is significantly more experienced or has more leverage, such as a cash buyer against a first-time seller, independent advice protects the weaker party from an unbalanced outcome.
• Mortgage-funded purchases: most lenders require the buyer's solicitor to act independently of the seller, which rules out shared representation for the majority of purchases funded by a mortgage.
• Complex property types: transactions involving leasehold conveyancing, new-build properties, or unregistered land carry extra legal complexity where each party benefits from a solicitor focused solely on their side of the deal, following the standard conveyancing process without competing loyalties.

Shared representation is sometimes pitched as a simple way to cut costs, and there is some truth to that, but the full picture is more nuanced than most conveyancing firms admit. Weighing the advantages honestly against the disadvantages is the only sensible way to decide whether it is worth the risk.

On the cost side, using one firm rather than two separate firms can genuinely save money. Where each side would otherwise pay a full set of conveyancing fees of roughly £700 to £1,500, a firm acting for both parties under one file may charge a combined fee that saves the parties somewhere between £500 and £1,000 in total, particularly in low-value or straightforward transactions. Communication can also be faster, since queries pass between two solicitors in the same building rather than by letter or email between separate firms, and paperwork such as identity checks and signing arrangements can sometimes be streamlined.

Against this, the disadvantages are more serious than the savings are attractive. Neither party receives fully independent advice, because both solicitors work for the same firm and ultimately the same fee-paying arrangement. If a conflict of interest emerges partway through the transaction, one party must instruct a new solicitor at short notice, which causes delay and extra cost that can easily wipe out any savings made at the start. Some mortgage lenders will refuse to accept the arrangement altogether, which can derail a purchase that is otherwise ready to proceed.

In practice, the advantages are modest and apply mainly to straightforward, low-conflict transactions, while the disadvantages can be severe if circumstances change. This is why shared representation should be considered only after checking that your situation genuinely fits one of the narrow scenarios where it is appropriate.

If you are buying with a mortgage, your lender's requirements matter more than your own preference for shared representation. Many mortgage lenders insist that the solicitor acting for the buyer, and by extension the lender itself, is independent of the solicitor acting for the seller. This is because the lender needs its own interests protected, separate from both the buyer and the seller, and shared representation can make that harder to demonstrate.

In practice, this single requirement rules out shared solicitors for the majority of residential purchases, since most buyers use a mortgage rather than cash. Before agreeing to any shared representation arrangement, check your specific lender's conveyancing panel requirements, as policies vary between lenders and can change without much notice.

If your lender does not accept shared representation, or if you simply want the reassurance of independent advice, take time to choose the best conveyancing solicitor for your side of the transaction rather than defaulting to whichever firm the other party has already instructed.

Everything discussed so far relates to one solicitor or firm acting for two different people, the buyer and the seller, in the same transaction. Using the same solicitor for your own simultaneous sale and purchase is an entirely different situation, and one that is completely normal.

If you are selling your current home and buying a new one at the same time, instructing one solicitor or firm to handle both sides of your personal chain is standard practice and creates no conflict of interest whatsoever, because you are the only client involved on both transactions. The advantages are genuine and significant: you get one point of contact for both matters, your solicitor can align exchange and completion dates across your sale and purchase so you move on the same day, and many firms offer a discount on combined fees when handling both sides of your move.

Taken together, the rules on shared representation are narrower than many sellers and buyers expect. Using the same individual solicitor for opposing parties is almost never appropriate, the same firm can act for both sides only in limited circumstances with strict safeguards in place, and using one solicitor for your own simultaneous buy and sell is normal and encouraged. If your situation falls outside the narrow scenarios where shared representation works, instructing separate, independent solicitors remains the safer route. Compare quotes from regulated conveyancing solicitors to find the right independent representation for your transaction.