How to run a conflict check at a law firm: what to search, who decides and what software can do

Most conflicts of interest are not hard to resolve once someone sees them. The trouble is when they are seen. A matter is opened on the strength of a client name, and weeks later someone notices that the adverse party’s parent company was a client of another partner, under a name nobody searched. Searching early and completely is repetitive work that software can do, as long as the decisions stay with lawyers. This guide is written for US law firms of roughly 20 to 200 people, where the rules come from state adoptions of the ABA Model Rules.

What is a conflict check in a law firm?

A conflict check is a search of the firm's records, run before a matter is opened, to find relationships that could create a conflict of interest, followed by a review by someone qualified to decide whether a conflict exists. The search is mechanical. The review is judgment.

The ABA Young Lawyers Division advises running it "before providing any legal advice and in advance of signing any engagement letter with a potential client" (ABA Young Lawyers Division). The duty comes from the professional conduct rules. ABA Model Rule 1.7 says a concurrent conflict exists if the representation of one client "will be directly adverse to another client," or if there is "a significant risk" that a representation will be materially limited by responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person, or by the lawyer's own interest (Rule 1.7).

The comment to Rule 1.7 speaks directly to process. A lawyer "should adopt reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, to determine in both litigation and non-litigation matters the persons and issues involved," and ignorance caused by a failure to institute such procedures "will not excuse a lawyer's violation of this Rule" (Comment to Rule 1.7).

Two neighboring rules shape the search. Rule 1.9(a) bars a lawyer from taking a matter that is the same as or substantially related to a former client's matter, with materially adverse interests, unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing (Rule 1.9). Rule 1.10(a) extends a bar on any one lawyer to the whole firm, subject to exceptions (Rule 1.10), which is why the search covers every lawyer's clients.

Each state adopts its own version of these rules, so the firm checks the rules and ethics opinions of its own jurisdiction. Accounting firms carry a parallel duty under the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, which treats a conflict as a threat to integrity and objectivity (Journal of Accountancy).

What should a conflict check search for?

The search is only as good as the list of names put into it. The ABA Young Lawyers Division suggests an entity's full legal name, aliases, state of incorporation and headquarters address, plus the opposing party and opposing counsel in adversarial matters. In practice the list is longer.

Matching is the hard part. Suffixes (Inc., LLC, Ltd., Corp.), abbreviations (Intl for International), an ampersand versus "and", misspellings and transliterations all defeat an exact search. Individuals are harder: a common name returns dozens of unrelated people, while a married or shortened name can hide the one who matters.

How do you run a conflict check, step by step?

A conflict check at a law firm runs in five steps, and the last one is what lets a matter number open.

1. Collect every name. Gather the prospective client's legal name, former names and trade names, its parents and affiliates, officers and owners, the adverse parties and their affiliates, opposing counsel and any known co-parties or witnesses.
2. Normalize the names. Strip suffixes such as Inc. and LLC, expand abbreviations, add known aliases and standardize spelling so one entity is not searched under six different forms.
3. Search every record system. Run each name against the conflicts database, time and billing records, the CRM and the document management system, not only the database named "conflicts."
4. Review each hit. Label it as exact or fuzzy, current or former client, adverse or aligned, and compare the earlier matter with the new one. An analyst clears obvious non-matches with a recorded reason, and anything else goes to the responsible partner or conflicts committee.
5. Record the clearance before the matter opens. Billing opens the matter number only after the clearance, and any waiver or screen, is on file.

Where do the records come from?

Conflict data lives in more places than the conflicts database.

• Practice management or conflicts database: open and closed matters with clients, adverse parties and related parties. Examples include Clio, Intapp, Aderant and Elite 3E.
• Time and billing: who actually worked for which client, useful when party fields were never filled in.
• CRM and new business intake forms: prospects and consultations that never became matters.
• Document management: iManage or NetDocuments workspaces holding engagement letters, waivers and screening memos.
• Lateral questionnaires: a new hire's former clients exist only on a form until someone enters them.

Data quality caps the result. Adverse parties on closed matters are often missing, and entities are entered under whatever name was typed at intake. Measure first how many closed matters list their adverse parties at all. A conflict search is also one step in a wider intake flow, covered in client onboarding automation for professional services.

What can automation and AI do in a conflict check?

Automation covers the search and the preparation. A person makes the call on every hit that matters.

A workflow can collect the intake on one form, or read the parties and their roles out of the demand letter, complaint or term sheet so nobody retypes them. It normalizes names by stripping suffixes, expanding abbreviations and adding known aliases, then searches every source at once, exact and fuzzy.

Each hit comes back labeled: exact or fuzzy, current or former client, adverse or aligned, and whether the earlier matter looks the same as or substantially related to the new one, the test in Rule 1.9(a). Obvious non-matches can be proposed for clearing, with a reason, for an analyst to confirm. Waiver requests and non-engagement letters can be drafted for a lawyer to edit.

AI is most useful in the reading: pulling party names out of documents, recognizing that two differently written names are probably one entity, and summarizing why a hit matters. The search and audit log should be repeatable software, so any clearance traces to a reason and a person.

The difference between a manual conflict check and a software-assisted one is mostly coverage and record keeping, not who decides.

A conflicts search touches the most sensitive records a firm holds: who its clients are and whom it acts against. Where that data is processed and who can see a hit report are governance questions to settle first, as covered in data security and governance for AI in the enterprise.

Who should receive each conflict check hit?

Routing is where manual conflict checks fail, because a hit lands in a shared inbox or with someone who cannot judge it.

1. Conflicts analyst or intake team: runs the search, clears obvious false positives with a recorded reason and escalates the rest. Deadline: before the first consultation or any advice.
2. Responsible or originating partner: reviews hits on their own clients and says what they know about the relationship. Deadline: before the engagement letter is signed.
3. General counsel, risk or conflicts committee: decides true conflicts, consentable conflicts, waivers and screens. Deadline: before first substantive work, or sooner if a filing or response date is running.
4. Lateral hiring coordinator: runs a lateral's prior matters through the same search. Deadline: before an offer is signed, with any screen in place before the start date.
5. Billing: opens the matter number only after a clearance is recorded. No clearance, no time entries.

A hit found before the engagement letter is a conversation. The same hit found after a pleading is filed is a disqualification risk. Where a hit needs a named person's decision, the workflow should wait for it, the pattern described in AI agents with human approval.

What should stay with lawyers in a conflict check?

A conflict check prepares a decision. The comment to Rule 1.7 lists the steps: identify the client, determine whether a conflict exists, decide whether the work may go ahead despite it, "i.e., whether the conflict is consentable," and if so obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing. Software can help with the first step by finding who the client and related parties are and where they appear in firm records. The remaining steps belong to lawyers.

Whether a conflict exists, and whether it can be waived. Taking inconsistent legal positions for different clients is ordinarily allowed, but the comment finds a conflict if there is "a significant risk" that a lawyer's action for one client will materially limit effectiveness for another. Software can show two matters touch the same issue. It cannot weigh that risk.

Informed consent, confirmed in writing. Rule 1.7(b)(4) requires it from each affected client. The comment adds that the writing "does not supplant the need in most cases for the lawyer to talk with the client, to explain the risks and advantages." A drafted waiver letter is a starting point. The conversation is the work.

Ethical screens. For a lateral lawyer's conflicts, Rule 1.10(a)(2) calls for timely screening, no share of the fee, and written notice to the former client, with certifications on request. A workflow can track the dates. A partner and the screened lawyer stand behind them.

Accepting or declining, including any non-engagement letter or referral to another firm, and business conflicts, such as a client relationship the firm would rather not risk, are partner decisions.

Rules differ by jurisdiction, so the firm's general counsel or ethics partner decides how its own state's rules apply.

Illustrative example: Consider a 40-lawyer firm asked to defend a supplier against a breach of contract claim. The intake form names the plaintiff by its trade name. The workflow adds the plaintiff's legal name and parent from the demand letter and a state registry record, then searches the matter database, billing records and CRM. It returns 11 hits. Eight are a common word shared with unrelated companies, and the analyst clears each with a recorded reason. Two are the same closed matter from six years earlier, in which another partner handled a lease. One is a current client that shares a director with the plaintiff. The closed matter goes to that partner and to general counsel. The current-client hit goes to the conflicts committee, which decides the lease matter is not substantially related to the dispute and that the shared director needs a conversation with the current client. The responsible partner has that conversation before the engagement letter goes out, and billing opens the matter number after the clearance is recorded.

How do you know a conflict check workflow is working?

The useful measures are about what the search caught and when, not how many searches ran.

Conflicts found before the engagement letter is the share identified before signature, compared with those found after work began. Late finds are the cost the process exists to prevent.

Backtest on known conflicts. Run the search on past requests where a conflict was found and check that every one comes back. One miss matters more than a hundred extra hits.

Reviewer overrides track how often a person reverses a proposed clearance. A rising rate means the thresholds need work.

Record quality is the share of matters with adverse parties and affiliates recorded, since the search can only find what the data contains.

How do you start automating conflict checks?

1. Choose one practice group and one intake path, such as new matter requests in a litigation group, with enough volume to measure.
2. List the searches the conflicts team runs by hand today, and agree which hits are hard stops (an exact match to a current client) and which an analyst can clear with a recorded reason.
3. Collect 50 to 100 past intake requests, including ones where a conflict was found and near misses, and test the search against answers the firm already has.
4. Run the workflow beside the manual process for a defined period and compare what each finds.
5. Add routing, owners and deadlines tied to the engagement letter and first substantive work once the findings are trustworthy.
6. Extend to lateral hires, other practice groups and re-checks when a new party appears once the first group is stable.

How Kastling approaches conflict checks

Kastling treats a conflict check as a workflow to understand before anything is built, as part of the AI Integration & Automation service. It starts with a free discovery call. A separately scoped paid audit is common next for professional services firms, reviewing the intake path, the systems that hold client, matter and billing records, and where conflicts have surfaced late in the past.

The search connects to the practice management, billing, CRM and document systems the firm already uses. Matching rules are agreed with the conflicts team, each hit goes to the person who owns the decision, and the conflict judgment, waivers, screens and acceptance stay with the firm's lawyers. We agree up front how success will be measured and test on real intake requests before anything runs on a live matter.