The Secrets to Real Estate Success: Part 4

Christian Gile • August 26, 2025

Why Your Commercial Real Estate Broker May Not Be on Your Side

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” —Mark Twain

In Commercial Real Estate, two key players enter the deal with very different goals:

Landlord: Builds wealth by maximizing rents and securing long-term, stable Tenants.
Doctor: Builds wealth by minimizing occupancy costs and growing their patient base.

In over 90% of transactions, the Broker represents — or may represent — both sides. This dual representation is common because most firms both list properties for Landlords, and represent Tenants or Buyers.

The Hidden Cost of Mediation

Under dual representation, your Broker shifts from being your advocate, to acting as a mediator. While mediation might sound fair, in real estate it means your Broker cannot push for your best deal without harming their relationship with the other side. The result is often a watered-down outcome that protects the deal, not your bottom line.

An even riskier scenario is when a Landlord offers to have their Broker “help you” with your lease. It may seem convenient — the Broker already knows the property and the market — but that Broker is legally bound to the Landlord. Their job is to secure the highest rent and most favorable terms for the Landlord, often at your expense. The very agency agreement that protects the Landlord now works against you, leaving you without a true advocate at the table.

The Difference Between Having Representation and Having Protection

The Cornell University Law School defines Fiduciary Duty as “a legal duty to act solely in another party’s interests.”

When you hire a Broker and they represent you exclusively, fiduciary duty is guaranteed. They are legally obligated to put your interests first, with full loyalty, confidentiality, and disclosure. But if that duty is shared with the other side — as in dual agency — their ability to advocate for you is limited by law.

Think of it this way: you would never hire an attorney who might also represent your opponent. The same principle applies in real estate. Entering a negotiation without exclusive representation means you are accepting divided loyalty from the start.

A Lesson From Wall Street

This is not just a real estate problem. The U.S. financial markets have faced the same conflict for years. Imagine going to a financial advisor for an investment, only to be sold something from a fund they manage. Under the “suitability” standard, as long as the investment is “good enough” for you, the advisor has done their job. But their loyalty lies with their employer, not you.

Dual agency in real estate works the same way. A Broker who represents both a Landlord and a Tenant only has to arrange a deal that is “good enough” for you, because they also must protect the Landlord’s interests. An exclusive Broker with fiduciary duty to you alone can push for the very best outcome without compromise.

Red Flag: Dual Agency and Your Negotiating Power

All licensed Real Estate Brokers owe fiduciary duties to their clients. The problem is that in many states, dual agency, where the same Brokerage represents both the Landlord and the Tenant, is still legal with written consent from both parties.

Even if two different Brokers in the same office handle each side, the Brokerage benefits from closing the deal, not from maximizing your terms. Once you agree to dual agency, your Broker cannot negotiate aggressively for you without hurting the other side. In some cases, even suggesting a lower rent could violate their duty to the Landlord. The result is weaker negotiation and a deal that is simply “good enough” instead of the best you could have secured.

The Bottom Line

In real estate, the majority of transactions are handled by firms that can represent both sides. Following the crowd in this case means accepting the risk of divided loyalty and weaker negotiation. Choose the less-traveled path: insist on an agency agreement that guarantees your Broker’s fiduciary duty to you alone. If a firm will not commit to exclusive representation, find one that keeps a strict separation between Landlord and Tenant work. The best choice is a firm that represents only Tenants and Buyers. Your Broker should never be in a position to both represent you, and list properties for Landlords.

After graduating from the United States Air Force Academy in 1998, Christian served in the U.S. Air Force for 13 years in Texas, California, Arizona, and Colorado. After his service, Christian Gile founded GILE Commercial Real Estate specializing in medical real estate and investment services. Christian has personally negotiated over 3,000 Commercial Real Estate deals for his clients. Christian loves what he does, enabling him to produce extraordinary results; the evidence? It is in the wealth he has created for his clients.

Phone: (602) 980-3171

Email: christian@gilecre.com

< Older Post

Newer Post >

When to Sell Your Practice: Understanding the Impact of Declining Revenues

By Christian Gile • April 30, 2026

One of the hardest conversations I have with physician clients is regarding selling their practice. Most of them think the ideal time to sell is when the business is humming: revenues are strong, patients are loyal, and all is well. They're right. What many don’t anticipate, however, is how significantly timing can impact outcomes. Declining revenues are more than just a warning sign—they can meaningfully affect the overall value of a practice. Why Declining Revenues Decrease Value in Your Practice When you sell your practice, buyers aren't buying your “past” success. They're buying cash flow in the future. The moment revenues start going down, you've really changed what you're selling. A revenue-declining practice sends a buyer one message: Risk. Buyers will discount substantially for that risk. Practice valuations are normally done on a multiple of EBITDA or gross revenues. If your revenues decline 15% and your margins contract, you're not only losing 15% of your practice value. You're losing that plus the multiplier effect, which can reduce your valuation by 30% or more. Hang on another year while revenues continue to fall, and you might find yourself with an unsellable practice at any price. The "Just One More Year" Trap I see this pattern all the time. A physician notices profits slacking but convinces themselves that it is only temporary. Maybe it's a seasonal dip, some key patients moved away, or insurance reimbursements were received late. They convince themselves they'll turn things around and sell next year when the numbers are better. The problem is next year rarely gets better. What started as a 5% reduction in revenue becomes 10%, then 15%. Margins shrink. Turnover increases. By the time the physician is ready to admit they need to sell, they're already negotiating in a position of weakness. The practice that could have sold for $1.2 million two years earlier might now fetch $600,000, if anyone will even look. Conclusion The best time to sell is when your practice is profitable, and the story you have for a buyer is one of growth and possibility. Deteriorating revenues are a red flag and must not be ignored. If you see a pattern of declining revenues taking shape, don't wait until it reverses itself. Have an independent assessment, talk to an advisor familiar with practice sales, and determine what options you have. The line between selling at the right time and waiting too long can be the difference between financial anxiety, and an easy retirement. Timing is not everything when it comes to selling your practice, but it is close.

Should I Buy an Established Practice or Scratch-Start?

By Christian Gile • April 23, 2026

One of the first major decisions physicians make when going into private practice is purchasing an existing practice, or starting one from scratch. Both can succeed, but they involve radically different risk, timelines, and expense. The Case for Buying an Established Practice Buying an established practice likely gives you immediate cash flow. You receive a patient base, trained personnel, existing payer contracts, and infrastructure. That is to say that you start making money immediately, instead of taking months or years to establish a patient base from zero. The finances are likely more stable. You can analyze prior revenue statements, learn about referral patterns, and establish profitability before investing. This is sometimes simpler to obtain financing for. The compromise is cost in the long run. You are, in essence, purchasing the seller's reputation and systems which may not always be the perfect fit. If the previous owner had poor relationships with referral sources or outdated processes, you will have those problems to resolve. The Case for a Scratch-Start Beginning from scratch gives you total control. You choose the location, design the space to your own specifications, hire your own staff, and build the culture that you want. No legacy baggage and no politics of inheriting another person's practice. The entry cost is sometimes intimidating. Sure, you'll still be paying for build-out and equipment, but you're also not paying top dollar for goodwill. The down side is time and risk. Building up a patient base requires time, and during that time, you'll have expenses while working on increasing your revenue. Conclusion If you need to start in a hurry, buying an existing practice is usually the better choice. If you are not bothered about a longer timeline and value autonomy, a scratch-start may be preferable. There isn't a one-size-fits-all, “right” solution. Talk to advisors who understand practice ownership, be conservative in assumptions, and choose the path that best suits your objectives and risk tolerance. The wrong choice will cost you money and time. The right one sets you up for long-term success.