Legal

Conflict check · before you take the case

The conflict check sweeps the parties on every matter in the firm, including the ones you are not allowed to see, and returns metadata only: whether a conflict exists, how risky it is, on what grounds and who to escalate to. It covers when to run it, how to read the result and how to record the decision in a way that cannot be altered.

The problem it solves

Taking on a client who is litigating against another client of the firm is one of the most expensive failures in legal practice. And the conflict is usually hiding exactly where you are not allowed to look: in a confidential matter belonging to another partner, behind the ethical wall.

The conflict check breaks that deadlock. It queries the parties on every matter in the firm, without exception, but what it hands back to you is metadata only. You learn that a conflict exists and who to take it to; you do not learn who the party on the other matter is or what it is about. Confidentiality stays intact and the gate still works.

When to run it

Before accepting any new client or new matter.
Before adding a new opposing party to a matter already under way.
When a company from the same corporate group as an existing client appears.
Whenever the engagement arrives by referral and you are not sure who is on the other side.

How to run it

Open Legal. The Conflict check block sits at the top of the screen.
Fill in the Candidate name, that is, the person or company you want to screen.
Fill in Identifiers with tax IDs, an email or other codes, one per line. That field does more for accuracy than anything else.
Click Run conflict check.
Read the result table, with the columns Matter, Role, Risk and Reasons.

When nothing turns up, the screen answers that no conflicts were found. That is not automatic clearance to accept: it is the absence of a match in the data the firm has recorded.

How to read the result

Each row is a match. The Matter column identifies the conflicting matter and the Role column says what that party's role is on it, for example client, opposing party or witness. The Risk column rates it High, Medium or Low. The Reasons column explains what made the system suspicious.

Shared identifier: the tax ID or email you entered is the same as one already on a recorded party. It is the strongest signal.
Exact name: the name matches in full after accents, capitalization and punctuation are normalized.
Similar name: the names share a meaningful portion of their terms. Useful against abbreviations and partial legal names, and it is the reason that produces the most false matches on people with the same name.

The result also points to who to escalate to: the person responsible for the conflicting matter. That is the practical piece of information. You are not going to discuss your colleague's matter, you are going to take the decision to whoever can make it.

💡 Name comparison ignores accents, capitalization and punctuation, and identifiers are compared as exact text. Record tax IDs without worrying about the format: what matters is that the same string is used across the whole firm.

Recording the decision

Checking is not enough; what protects the firm is the record of what was decided. After running the screen, use the Record decision block for the name you checked and pick one of three outcomes.

Cleared: there is no conflict standing in the way of acceptance.
Waiver: a conflict exists, but the parties involved have formally consented to the representation.
Declined: the firm does not take the case.

Every recorded decision is chained to the one before it, forming a verifiable sequence: altering or deleting an old record breaks the chain and shows. Frozen alongside the decision is a summary of what was screened. In any later inquiry, the firm demonstrates not only what it decided, but what it knew at the moment it decided. The history appears on the same screen, under Decision log.

Example: Transbrasa Logistics comes to the firm wanting to sue a carrier. Before accepting, the partner types Transbrasa Logistics into Candidate name and pastes the company's tax ID into Identifiers. The result returns one row: High risk, role opposing party, reason shared identifier, and it points to attorney Helena as the person responsible for the conflicting matter. The partner speaks to Helena, the firm declines the case, and he records the decision as Declined. At no point did he learn which matter is Helena's or who her client is.

What the check does not do

It does not block the creation of a matter on its own. It informs and records; the decision belongs to the firm.
It does not reveal the conflicting party's name or the content of the matter, by design.
It does not query outside databases, courts or public lists. It looks at what your firm has recorded.
It does not understand corporate groups automatically. Companies in the same group under different names and tax IDs have to be screened one by one.

Frequently asked questions

The result came back empty, can I accept? It only means there was no match in the recorded data. If the parties on older matters were recorded incompletely, the screen's reach is narrower.
A high risk came up that is clearly just a name collision. Record the decision as Cleared and describe the reason. That record is your defense later on.
Can I delete a decision I recorded by mistake? No. The sequence is unalterable on purpose. Record a new decision for the same name; the log shows both, in order.
Why does the row not show the other party's name? Because showing it would break the confidentiality of the other matter. You get enough to escalate.
Do I need to run it again if the matter takes a while to close? It is worth running again before signing. The firm takes on new matters all the time, and the picture may have changed.

Open this article inside the system →