Opinion 63-21
FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION OPINION 63-21 September 18, 1963 Advisory ethics opinions are not binding. It is not improper for a bank making a loan to require, as a condition thereof, that its attorney pass on the title to the property mortgaged and to require the borrower to bear the cost of its attorney’s fee even though the work of the attorney representing the borrower may duplicate that of the bank’s counsel. Canons: 12, 38 Vice-Chairman Smith stated the opinion of the committee: A bank, which furnishes a mortgage in connection with a matter, is entitled to counsel to pass on title and other aspects of the lending transaction. The bank further may require the borrower to bear the resulting legal fee as a condition of the loan. It is not improper for the bank’s attorney to insist upon a fee for the service rendered the bank even though the work of the attorneys involved in the matter may be duplicated on behalf of their respective client.