Op-Ed: Clear Cooperation—A Rule Worth Defending

Clear Cooperation is an essential rule from the National Association of REALTORSⓇ that is under fire by some brokerage leaders who are trying to dismantle it. At its core, this rule ensures that when a REALTORⓇ lists a property and markets it in any way, it must be shared with all other brokers on the multiple listing service (MLS).

As I write this, my father, Jordan Baris, looks on from his photo behind me. When I first entered the business in 1985, I was eager to make my mark. I distinctly remember considering not sharing one of my first listings with other brokers. I thought I could sell it quickly and avoid potentially splitting the brokerage fee. At 21, my focus was on personal gain, not on serving my clients in the best possible way.

Jordan Baris (left) and Ken Baris (right)

My father didn’t let that line of thinking last long. He said, “Kenny, the clients come first. We’re going to share that information with everyone out there. Whoever can get the best transaction for the seller is who we sell the property to, period!” He made it clear that our duty was to act in our clients’ best interests, not our own.

It did not stop me from showing the property, obtaining offers on my listings or selling them. It did make certain that our clients had broad marketing to our fellow REALTORSⓇ. While I never like losing a sale to a better offer, I always love doing the best for our clients. 

Those who now oppose Clear Cooperation remind me of my younger self. At 21 and new to the business, I could justify withholding a listing from broader exposure, thinking no harm was done. Candidly, not because I couldn’t understand that broad exposure could benefit my client, but because I didn’t want to see that from my young perspective. In reality, limiting access is for the sake of personal gain and potentially compromises clients. We must be about ensuring clients get the best possible outcome. 

As a firm that “Clearly Cooperates,” we have sold our own listings thousands of times. The difference is, we’ve done so while giving the marketplace an equal opportunity to compete. If a buyer from another firm presents a better offer, we welcome it. Our loyalty is to our clients, not just to our own sales figures.

Clear Cooperation prioritizes the client’s interest above all else. Sadly, some influential voices in the industry are aggressively fighting against it. I have read the arguments they make and find that they use extremely limited situations to change rules for the vast majority of properties. I find these arguments grasping. Removing Clear Cooperation would be harmful to clients, plain and simple. The personal or brokerage gain may be clear—even at 21, I understood that—but as my father quickly taught me, that gain should never come at the client’s expense.

Sometimes our team will meet with a seller and the seller says, “I’m talking with another broker, and they want to keep it exclusive for a while.” I equate that to Tom Sawyer and the white picket fence. Tom Sawyer convinced (which is a nice word for “tricked,” in this instance) people that painting a picket fence is a lot of fun. However, making an exclusive listing sound like a benefit to the seller, when in reality, it primarily serves the broker, is a much bigger issue than getting a fence painted. The implication is clear: Limiting exposure means limiting competition. And that’s a disservice to the seller.

Sellers deserve the best possible results, which means maximum competition. Properties should be exposed to the entire market, not just the agent’s close network or office.

After sharing my thoughts on this topic through a social media video, I received an overwhelming amount of support from peers throughout the industry through comments, texts, emails and calls. From owners of some of the industry’s largest organizations to agents from both franchise and independent firms, every single one agreed. They recognized that putting clients first is the right thing to do. 

Clear Cooperation isn’t just a rule—it’s a commitment to doing what’s right. Undoing it would shift our focus from “client first” to “brokerage first,” which goes against our fiduciary responsibility. Let’s keep our industry on the right path—one that keeps our clients’ interests at the heart of what we do.