Under what circumstances may an unlicensed attorney in fact engage in activities that would normally require a real estate license?

• A. While acting with compensation
• B. When acting without compensation
• C. Only if the principal is a licensed entity
• D. Only if supervised by a licensed attorney

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that real estate licensing hinges on performing brokerage activities for compensation. An attorney in fact can participate in actions that would normally require a license only when they are acting for the principal without receiving any compensation. In that no-fee scenario, those acts are considered the principal’s steps, not the attorney-in-fact’s paid brokerage, so licensing isn’t triggered. If compensation is involved, the activity would be treated as real estate brokerage and would require a licensed broker. The answer isn’t about who the principal is or whether supervision exists—it's about whether compensation is accepted for the brokerage-related actions.