I am an attorney and my ethical classes taught me a very basic principle - never attempt to represent more than one party because inevitably there will be conflicts and you will not be able to be neutral no matter how hard you try. At the very least, everyone involved in that transaction should have been asked to sign a waiver and consent before representation commenced. Unfortunately, you are not a party to that closing, so you don't have any input, but you should have included a clause in your contract that allows for revocation if there is an extensive delay in the closing. Also you may find that the atty isn't representing both parties but that is the perception of your buyer...very common misconception if someone is inexperienced in transactions and also naively trusting.

It is very common for 1 attorney to handle all the closing aspects, title etc

And frankly, 99% of the time, the only thing you would want an individual attorney to do is review the contract before you sign. Once that is done, the contract is going to trump everything else.

Not sure how it works in the U.S., but in Canada a lawyer can work for both parties to a transaction as long as each party recieves independent legal advice (basically they just "visit" another lawyer and sign a document that says that they are aware their lawyer is representing both parties and are aware of any risks involved in that). A lawyer that I used to work for would represent both parties if both were okay with that, but if a dispute arose, both parties would have to find new lawyers.

Bill, you are right as to typical closings but not if there are disputes. An attorney is opening himself up to malpractice if he is holding himself out as an attorney for both sides and disputes arise which he then tries to mediate. There's not enough info about this scenario given by the original poster to know if the hold-up is financing or inspections or if someone is trying to breach the contract, so without that info then speculation is all anyone can provide.

Also, contracts may not always trump - there are defenses available for breach of contract...another reason 1 atty doesn't need to represent 2 parties when conflict arises.

There is nothing wrong with the settlement attorney representing both parties - this happens all the time. Your problem isn't really with the attorney - your real problem is that you accepted a contingency. It's a domino effect - one thing goes wrong somewhere in the chain and it effects everyone. This is why I never accept a contingency.

There is not all that much for an attorney to advise on by the time you get to the settlement table.

Some states do not even require an attorney to conduct a settlement, while others (by law or the bar raising hell) require an attorney to be present.

Review documents, pass them around for signature, make sure things are recorded properly , collect & release funds, and generally make sure all the paperwork is in order.

In Virginia the settlement companies often hire an attorney for a few hours just so they do not get the bar up in arms.

It is not uncommon for one party to pay and select the settlement attorney or company.