Guide · Law firms
How law firms run a conflict of interest check
A conflict check is the step most firms already do informally, by asking around the office, before it is written down anywhere. Formalising it protects the firm as much as the client. This guide walks through what the check is actually looking for, what information you need to run it, and how it fits into new-client intake.
- A conflict check compares a prospective client and matter against every past and current one
- You need full legal names, related entities and the other side's identity to search properly
- Document that the check happened, even when the answer is no conflict found
What is a conflict check actually checking for?
A conflict of interest check looks for any existing or past relationship between the firm and either side of a new matter that could compromise independence, breach a duty of confidentiality to a former client, or put the firm on both sides of the same dispute. That covers the obvious case, representing one party against a current client, and the less obvious ones: a former client on the other side with confidential information still relevant, a lawyer who previously advised the opposing party at a different firm, or a business relationship between a partner and one of the parties. Most professional conduct rules require this check before accepting a new matter, not after.
What information do you need from the prospective client to run one?
You need the full legal name of the prospective client, and of any related entities, parent companies, subsidiaries or key individuals involved in the matter, plus the identity of every other party to the matter, the other side, any co-defendants, guarantors or counterparties. A one-line description of what the matter is actually about matters too, since a name alone will not reveal whether the substance overlaps with a past engagement. Collecting this at intake, before the client relationship starts, means the search happens before anyone has committed time or shared confidential information.
How do firms search past and current matters and parties?
Most firms search a central client and matter database by name, covering current clients, former clients still within any applicable time window, and parties on the other side of past matters, not only clients the firm represented directly. Larger firms use dedicated conflicts software; smaller firms often rely on the practice management system's client index plus a manual cross-check with partners who might recall an unlisted relationship. The search should cover name variations, since a company operating under a trading name or a person using a maiden name can otherwise slip through a literal name match.
What do you do when a possible conflict turns up?
A hit does not automatically mean the firm cannot act. The next step is assessing whether the conflict is real, resolvable with an ethical wall between the lawyers involved, resolvable with informed consent from the affected client, or a hard stop that means declining the matter. That assessment usually needs a partner or the firm's ethics or risk lead, not the person doing intake, and the decision and its reasoning should be recorded, since a documented, considered decision holds up far better later than an undocumented one, whichever way it goes.
How do you document that the check happened, for your own file?
A record showing the search was run, what it searched against, what it found, and how any hit was resolved, protects the firm if the decision is questioned later, by a regulator, a court, or the client themselves. The simplest reliable approach is to make the conflict check a required, timestamped step in opening any new matter, so it cannot be skipped under time pressure and so the record exists automatically rather than depending on someone remembering to write a memo afterward.
Where a conflict check step fits inside a new client intake flow
The check works best as a gate at the start of intake: the prospective client's and other parties' names go in, the search runs, and the matter cannot proceed to engagement letter and AML due diligence until a partner clears it or documents a resolution. Building it as a required step in the same flow as the rest of intake means it happens for every new matter by default, rather than being a step someone has to remember to run separately.
In Braigest
A gate a partner has to clear before a matter proceeds
A review step in a Braigest workflow can hold a new matter until a named partner records a conflict-check decision, before the client reaches the engagement letter. Workflow building is included from the Solo plan at €29/month.
Frequently asked questions
Is a conflict check legally required, or just good practice?
Most bar and law society conduct rules require a conflict check before accepting a new matter. The exact rule and its wording depend on your jurisdiction, so confirm with your own professional body.
Does a conflict check replace the AML due diligence check?
No. They check different things: a conflict check protects independence and confidentiality between clients, while AML due diligence identifies who you are dealing with for money-laundering purposes. Most firms run both at intake.
What if the firm only realises there is a conflict after the matter has started?
Stop and get advice from your ethics or risk lead immediately. Rules on withdrawing from a matter once a conflict emerges vary by jurisdiction and matter type, so this needs professional judgement, not a general answer.
Do sole practitioners need a formal conflict check process too?
Yes. The underlying duty applies regardless of firm size. A sole practitioner's process is simpler, a personal record of matters and parties checked against each new instruction, but the check itself is not optional.
Explore more of the platform
Ready to fix your onboarding?
See the whole flow in a 30-minute call, or explore the full Braigest platform.