When Independence Becomes Invisible: A Quiet Question Raised by Recent Litigation

A recent lawsuit filed against Rocket Companies has renewed discussion within the real estate industry about mortgage steering, referral networks, and real estate independence.

According to reporting by Inman (subscription may be required), the complaint alleges that Rocket operated referral arrangements that incentivized real estate agents to steer buyers toward Rocket Mortgage, potentially limiting exposure to alternative financing options. Rocket has publicly denied the allegations and stated it intends to vigorously defend the case.

At this stage, the claims remain allegations. The courts will determine the legal outcome.

But for those of us who have spent decades working inside this industry, the lawsuit raises a separate and quieter issue, one worth discussing regardless of how the case is resolved: how visible and meaningful independence has become in an increasingly integrated real estate ecosystem.

When Independence Was Structural, Not Symbolic

For much of modern real estate history, transactions relied on distinct and largely independent professionals:

• A buyer’s agent whose loyalty ran solely to the client
• A lender competing for the borrower’s business
• An appraiser operating at arm’s length from production
• An attorney representing either buyer or lender, but rarely both

This separation was not accidental. It created natural checks and balances. Disagreement, delay, and even friction were accepted as part of consumer protection.

In that environment, an unspoken question lived quietly in the bones of the industry:

Who is independent enough to say no when no is the right answer?

That question rarely needed to be asked out loud, because the structure itself answered it.

The Rise of the Integrated Platform

Today, many large national firms are moving toward vertical integration. Mortgage origination, brokerage services, referral networks, appraisal management, title, closing, and loan servicing increasingly operate under a single corporate umbrella or through tightly aligned partnerships.

The goals are understandable and often well-intentioned:

• Greater efficiency
• Lower costs
• A smoother consumer experience
• Fewer handoffs and delays

In many cases, these platforms deliver exactly that.

But efficiency comes with a side effect that deserves thoughtful examination: the quiet compression of independence.

Disclosure Is Not the Same as Independence

Modern compliance frameworks rely heavily on disclosure. Conflicts are not necessarily avoided; they are disclosed and consented to.

From a regulatory standpoint, that may be sufficient. Each entity can truthfully state that it operates within the law and respects professional boundaries.

Yet disclosure does not recreate the structural independence that once existed by default.

When a buyer:

• Works with an agent connected to a mortgage referral network
• Is encouraged toward a preferred lender
• Has the appraisal ordered by an affiliated appraisal management company
• Is offered legal representation by an attorney whose primary client is the lender

…it becomes reasonable to ask, without accusation:

Who in this transaction is positioned to act solely for the buyer if interests diverge?

Or stated more plainly:

Who is independent enough to say no when no is the right answer?

The Often-Unseen Role of Valuation Management

One part of the modern transaction that rarely enters public discussion is appraisal management.

In many integrated models, appraisal assignments are handled by appraisal management companies affiliated with, or owned by, larger mortgage enterprises. These firms do not perform appraisals themselves, but they do control assignment flow, reviewer interaction, and panel participation.

Most consumers are unaware of this. Many agents never raise the issue. Yet valuation remains one of the most consequential elements of any transaction.

Even when appraisers act ethically and independently, structure matters. Independence can be fully compliant and still feel constrained when volume is concentrated and assignments are controlled upstream.

Why This Matters Beyond Any One Lawsuit

Regardless of how the current litigation is resolved, the broader concern is not legal liability. It is professional culture.

As integration deepens:

• Independence risks becoming a talking point rather than a safeguard
• Fiduciary duty risks being reduced to disclosure language
• New agents may learn efficiency before skepticism
• Consumers may assume alignment where none is guaranteed

Over time, questions that once lived quietly in the bones of the industry must now be asked out loud, because the structure no longer answers them on its own.

A Question Worth Preserving

The real estate industry does not need to reject innovation or integration. But it should be willing to ask whether independence remains structural, or whether it has become merely theoretical.

Progress and professionalism are not opposing values. But maintaining both requires intention, not just compliance.

Real estate has always relied on trust. Trust is strengthened when independent voices exist not just in theory, but in practice.

And that brings us back to a question worth preserving:

Who is independent enough to say no when no is the right answer?

Because when independence becomes invisible, consumers may not realize what they have given up until they need it most.

Author’s Note:
Robert Smith is a New York State Licensed Real Estate Broker with more than 40 years of experience in brokerage, education, and real estate regulation. The author and his wife Cindy own the Professional Career Center a licensed New York State Real Estate School in Syracuse, New York.