Conflict Checking: The Intake Step You Can't Afford to Skip

Conflict checking is the bedrock of ethical legal practice, yet it is often treated as an administrative afterthought. In many firms, the check happens too late—often after sensitive information has already been shared. This exposes the firm to disqualification motions and malpractice liability.

This article argues for shifting conflict checking to the very beginning of the detailed intake process, protecting both the firm and the client.

Key Concepts

Effective conflict checking is proactive, not reactive. It requires a system that understands relationships, not just names.

• Real-Time Detection — Identifying potential conflicts the moment data is entered, rather than days later.
• Entity Resolution — The ability to match individuals to companies, trusts, and other associated entities to find hidden conflicts.
• Protective Screening — Walling off information flow until a check is cleared to prevent irrevocable breaches of confidentiality.

Real-Time Detection

Traditional workflows involve taking notes, then having a distinct "conflict check" phase. By then, the client may have already disclosed confidential strategy.

Modern intake systems verify names against your database in real-time. If a match is found (“John Smith” is already an opposing party), the system can flag it instantly, preventing the intake from proceeding further.

Entity Resolution

A name search is insufficient. You might not represent "John Doe," but you might represent the "Doe Family Trust" or a company he owns.

Advanced conflict systems map these relationships. They see the web of connections between entities, ensuring that you don't accidentally take a position adverse to an existing client's interests through a related party.

Conclusion

You cannot afford to treat conflict checking as a checkbox at the file opening stage. It must be a gatekeeper at the intake stage.

By automating and front-loading this process, you ensure that your firm's growth is built on a solid ethical foundation, free from the ticking time bomb of unverified conflicts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if a conflict is found during intake?

The system should pause the intake and alert the managing attorney to review before any further information is collected.

Can software catch every conflict?

No software replaces attorney judgment, but it catches the 99% of obvious matches that human error often misses.

Is this required by the Bar?

Rules like Model Rule 1.7 require lawyers to check for conflicts. Doing it systematically is the best way to demonstrate compliance.

Sources & Further Reading

• ABA Model Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest
• Freivogel on Conflicts