Many real estate agents place advertising that emphasizes their community activities, charitable involvements, educational achievements, and professional affiliations. That is all well and good; but, certainly, the thing that most consumers are most interested in has to do with sales. "How many homes have you sold?" "Where?" "In what price range?" etc.

No wonder, then, that the Realtor Code of Ethics has sections dealing with the topic of advertising what has been sold. Hard as it is to believe, people have been known to mislead, even to exaggerate.

Some years ago, only the listing broker was allowed to claim to have sold a property; and not the cooperating broker – the one who worked with the buyer. This neither matched reality nor common usage. Hence the code was modified so that both the listing broker and the broker who worked with the buyer could claim the sale. (This, too, leads to oddity. Only one house has been sold on Main Street, but two different real estate companies can legitimately claim to have sold it.)

Even this rule, though, doesn't reflect common usage or understanding. The rules say only the broker (the company) can say "sold"; but most people think of the individual agent, who often is not the company broker.

Suppose that Joe of Razzle Dazzle Real Estate listed your home and it sold in three days. You might say that Joe sold it really fast, or that Razzle Dazzle did, or that Joe of Razzle Dazzle did. To most consumers, the difference would be of little consequence. But it might make considerable difference to the broker/owner of Razzle Dazzle.

Recently, at the mid-year meetings of the National Association of Realtors, the Professional Standards Committee considered and ultimately adopted what is called a "case interpretation" dealing with this topic. A case interpretation is meant to illustrate and/or explain the more general principles embodied in the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. Sometimes they are successful. In this case, it is not so clear.

To stick with our example, the gist of the case is something like this: Joe worked for Razzle Dazzle for years. During that time he sold many homes and his advertising reflected that. Indeed, his website carried the headline, "I sold these – and I can help you buy or sell, too!". Under the headline was a list of numerous properties in which Joe had represented either the buyer or the seller.

Some time later, Joe left Razzle Dazzle and joined Hot Shot Agents, Inc. As soon as he affiliated with Hot Shot Agents, he changed all his cards and advertising to reflect that fact. However, his website still carried the headline, "I sold these … etc." along with the list of properties.

Joe's former broker protested. His argument was that only the broker (company) can claim to have sold a property, either as listing or selling agent. For Joe to say "I sold these", while now operating under the banner of Hot Shot Agents, is misleading because it makes it appear that Hot Shot Agents, Inc. was one of the participating brokers in the transactions.

Joe's simple defense was that if it were true that he had sold the properties when he was with Razzle Dazzle, then it is still true even though he is now with Hot Shot Agents.

To parallel the case study recently adopted by the Professional Standards Committee, we would have to say that the Razzle Dazzle broker was correct, and that Joe is guilty of violating his Code of Ethics (Article 12) duty not to engage in misleading advertising.

Not everyone is going to agree with this interpretation.