What Is a Conflict Check?
Your intake coordinator just spent 20 minutes entering a new lead, sending the intake form, and scheduling the consultation. Then someone ran the conflict check and found you represented the opposing party three years ago. That is the cost of running conflict checks too late. This guide explains what a conflict check is, what it must cover, and how to automate it so the problem never happens again.
Conflict Check at a Glance
Of Malpractice Claims
Conflicts of interest account for approximately 20% of legal malpractice risk according to DRI survey data. A missed conflict check is not just an administrative failure – it is a liability exposure that follows the firm long after the matter is closed.
Miss Rate on Manual Checks
Manual conflict checks using spreadsheets or memory miss potential conflicts 25 to 30 percent of the time. As a firm grows and the database of past clients and parties expands, that miss rate gets worse – not better.
Minutes Before Intake Should Start
The conflict check must happen before intake starts – before the first consultation, before confidential information is shared, before staff invests any time in the matter. Zero minutes into the relationship is the right time to run it.
The Short Answer. And the Real One.
The short answer is that a conflict check is a search law firms run to make sure they can ethically represent a new client. The real answer is that it is one of the most important gatekeeping processes a law firm has – and one of the most commonly done wrong. Most firms run conflict checks manually, after intake has already started, searching only their own client list. That approach misses conflicts regularly and creates liability every time it does.
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and virtually every state bar require conflict checks. The rules exist because attorneys owe a fiduciary duty to their clients – a duty of loyalty and confidentiality that cannot be compromised by competing obligations. A conflict check is how a firm verifies that duty can be fulfilled before the relationship begins.
A conflict check is the systematic process law firms use to screen prospective new clients, opposing parties, and related entities against their existing and former client database before accepting representation – identifying any conflict of interest that could compromise the firm’s duty of loyalty or confidentiality. It must happen before the initial consultation, before any confidential information is exchanged, and before any intake time is invested in a matter that may need to be declined. When automated correctly inside Lawmatics by Ettinger Tech, the check fires the moment a new matter is created and routes the result automatically – with no staff intervention required.
The Three Types of Conflicts of Interest
Not all conflicts look the same. Understanding the three primary types helps explain why thorough conflict checks need to search far beyond just the prospective client’s name.
Direct Adversity
The clearest conflict – representing a party whose interests are directly opposed to those of a current client in the same or a related matter. Example: A firm is asked to represent a plaintiff suing a company the firm currently represents in a separate matter. The interests are directly adverse and the conflict is immediate. These conflicts are almost never waivable.
Material Limitation
A more subtle conflict – where the attorney’s personal interests, obligations to a third party, or duties to another client materially limit the ability to represent the new client fully. Example: An attorney with a financial stake in a company is asked to represent a client in a matter adverse to that company. The personal interest limits full independent judgment.
Imputed Conflicts
Under ABA Model Rules, one attorney’s conflict of interest is generally imputed to all attorneys at the firm. This is why conflict checks must account for matters handled by every attorney at the firm – not just the attorney who will be handling the new matter. A lateral hire’s conflicts become the firm’s conflicts the day they join.
When a Conflict Check Must Be Run
Most firms run conflict checks at the wrong time or miss trigger points entirely. Here is when the check is required and why each moment matters.
Before the Initial Consultation
This is the most critical moment and the one most firms get wrong. The conflict check must happen before the prospective client shares any confidential information – which means before the first consultation, not during intake, and not after the consultation is already scheduled. The moment a prospective client starts sharing case details, the ethical clock starts. A conflict discovered after that conversation is far more complicated to handle than one caught at the door.
Before Formally Accepting the Matter
Even if a preliminary check was run before the consultation, a more thorough conflict check should be completed before the retainer agreement is signed and the attorney-client relationship is officially established. By this point, the firm has more information about the parties, the opposing side, and the nature of the matter – allowing for a more complete search. Both checks serve a purpose. The preliminary check protects the consultation. The formal check protects the engagement.
When a Lateral Attorney Joins the Firm
Every attorney who joins the firm brings their conflict history with them. Under imputation rules, the conflicts of a new lateral attorney become the firm’s conflicts the day they start. A conflict check against the lateral’s entire client history from their previous firm is not optional – it is required. Missing this step is one of the most common ways firms discover conflicts months after a lateral has joined, well into representation of matters that should have been screened.
When New Parties Enter an Existing Matter
A conflict check is not a one-time event at intake. As matters evolve and new parties are added – co-defendants, third-party plaintiffs, intervenors, newly identified related entities – additional conflict checks should be run against each new party. A matter that was clean at intake can develop a conflict as its scope expands. Ongoing conflict monitoring is part of a complete conflict management system.
When the Scope of Representation Changes Significantly
If an existing client matter expands into new subject matter, new geographic territory, or involves new parties, a fresh conflict check against the expanded scope is appropriate. A firm that began representing a client in a contract dispute and is now asked to represent them in related litigation involving new adverse parties needs to re-screen those parties before expanding the engagement.
What a Thorough Conflict Check Must Search
Most firms check too little. A conflict check that only covers current clients will miss the majority of conflicts that actually create liability. Here is what a complete search must cover.
The Prospective Client
Full name including maiden names and aliases, email address, phone number, business name and affiliations, and any other identifying information provided during intake. Search for exact matches and contains variations – names are frequently misspelled, go by different forms, or appear under associated entities in the database.
All Opposing Parties
Every known opposing party, co-defendant, adverse party, and their affiliated entities. This is where most manual conflict checks fail. Firms that only check against their own client list will miss situations where they currently represent or have previously represented someone who is adverse to the new client – even if the new client themselves is not in the database.
Related Entities and Affiliates
Parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliated businesses, insurance carriers, and any other organizational entities connected to either the prospective client or the opposing parties. Corporate family relationships are a frequent source of missed conflicts – especially in business law, real estate, and insurance defense matters where the web of related entities is complex.
Associated Individuals
Spouses, domestic partners, family members, employers, and key individuals affiliated with either the prospective client or the adverse parties. In estate planning, family law, and personal injury matters especially, the individual connections between parties can create conflicts that a name-only search of the primary parties would never surface.
Manual Conflict Checks vs Automated Software
The difference between running conflict checks manually and automating them inside Lawmatics is not just speed – it is reliability, consistency, and liability exposure.
Spreadsheets and Memory
- Someone has to remember to run the check – and when intake is busy, they forget
- Miss rate of 25-30% on potential conflicts according to research
- Searches only as complete as whoever is running it that day
- No audit trail of when the check was run or what was searched
- Results do not trigger the next step automatically – someone still has to act
- Fails entirely when the person who knows the history is out of office
- Check often runs after intake has already started – when it is too late
Zero-Intervention Conflict Screening
- Fires automatically the moment a new matter is created – before intake starts
- Searches every field, note, and record across every matter in the firm
- Dynamic merge fields search name, email, and phone on every check
- Full audit trail in conflict check history with search terms and date
- Approved results trigger intake workflow automatically – no staff step needed
- Denied results trigger a separate workflow automatically – routing is built in
- Consistent regardless of who is handling intake or what time it is
The Lawmatics advantage. Most conflict check software is a standalone tool that still requires a staff member to initiate the search. Lawmatics, when configured by Ettinger Tech, automates the entire process – the check fires, the result is evaluated, and the correct workflow fires next. All without a single manual step. That is the difference between conflict checking as a task and conflict checking as a system.
What Happens When a Conflict Check Is Missed
The consequences of a missed conflict check are not theoretical. They are specific, serious, and frequently more expensive than the matter itself would have been worth.
CNA Insurance – one of the largest legal malpractice insurers in the United States – has identified conflicts of interest as a leading cause of legal malpractice claims for years. The California State Bar Legal Malpractice Claims Survey points to business transactions, corporate and securities, and real estate as particularly vulnerable practice areas.
The damage is not just financial. A conflict discovered mid-representation forces a choice between a damaging withdrawal and a complicated waiver process – neither of which is good for the client, the firm, or the relationship.
Disqualification from the CaseWhen a conflict is discovered after representation has begun, the firm may be disqualified – forced to withdraw from the case at a critical moment, handing the client a delay they did not cause and a problem they did not expect.
Bar Complaints and Disciplinary ActionFailure to run adequate conflict checks can result in bar complaints and formal disciplinary proceedings. The rules of professional conduct are explicit – the obligation to check is not optional, and violations are taken seriously.
Malpractice ClaimsClients harmed by a conflict that the firm should have caught can bring malpractice claims. The combination of a missed check, an undisclosed conflict, and resulting harm to the client creates significant exposure that most firms’ insurance does not cover comfortably.
Reputational DamageEven when the legal consequences are resolved, the reputational fallout from a conflict situation – particularly one that becomes public through a bar complaint or court motion to disqualify – can affect client acquisition and referral relationships for years.
Questions About Conflict Checks
What is a conflict check in simple terms?
A conflict check is the process a law firm runs before taking on a new client to make sure representing them would not create a conflict of interest with any existing or former client. The firm searches its database for any prior relationship with the prospective client, the opposing parties, or anyone else connected to the matter – and makes a decision about whether representation is ethically permissible before intake begins.
Are law firms required to run conflict checks?
Yes. ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9 govern conflicts of interest and require that attorneys avoid representing clients whose interests conflict with those of current or former clients. Most state bar rules follow similar requirements. Failing to run adequate conflict checks is a violation of professional conduct rules that can result in disciplinary action, disqualification, and malpractice liability.
How does Lawmatics automate conflict checks?
When configured by Ettinger Tech, Lawmatics fires an automated Run Conflict Check action the moment a new matter is created – using dynamic merge fields to search the prospective client’s name, email, and phone number against every field and record in the firm’s database. Auto-Approve marks clean results approved without staff review. Denied results trigger a separate workflow automatically. The entire process happens without a staff member initiating it.
What is the difference between a conflict check and a conflicts of interest check?
They are the same thing – a conflicts of interest check is simply a more formal way of describing what a conflict check does. The process screens for any situation where the firm’s duty to a prospective client could be compromised by obligations to existing or former clients. Both terms refer to the same ethical gatekeeping process required before representation begins.
Can a conflict be waived?
Some conflicts can be waived with informed written consent from all affected clients. The attorney must fully disclose the conflict, explain the implications, and obtain documented consent before proceeding. Not all conflicts are waivable – direct adversity in the same matter generally cannot be waived. Courts and bar associations scrutinize waivers closely, and even when a waiver is technically permissible, the safer course is often to decline the representation and issue a non-engagement letter.
What is the best conflict check software for law firms?
For law firms using Lawmatics, the best conflict check software is Lawmatics itself – when properly configured by Ettinger Tech. It automates the check at matter creation, searches all fields and records across every matter in the firm, and routes results to the correct workflow automatically. For firms not yet on Lawmatics, any integrated practice management system that can automate the check at intake is superior to standalone spreadsheet-based processes. See how Ettinger Tech configures Lawmatics conflict checking. For a full comparison of conflict check software options, read the complete guide to the best conflict check software for law firms.
How should a law firm document conflict checks?
Every conflict check should be documented with the date it was run, the search terms used, the results returned, and the decision made. Lawmatics maintains a full conflict check history automatically – every check is logged with verification status, search terms, and date, and also appears on the matter’s timeline. This audit trail is essential if a conflict is ever challenged or if a bar complaint requires documentation of the firm’s screening process.
What should a law firm do when a conflict is found?
When a conflict is identified, the first step is to determine whether it is waivable. If it is not – or if the waiver process is too complicated – the firm should decline the representation promptly and issue a clear non-engagement letter to the prospective client stating that after the conflict check process, the firm is unable to take the case. The prospective client should be advised to seek other counsel promptly, particularly if there are deadlines involved. When Lawmatics is configured by Ettinger Tech, a denied conflict result automatically triggers this routing – staff notification, matter status update, and a defined response path – without manual routing decisions.
Now You Know What It Is.
Let Us Automate It for You.
A conflict check that runs automatically at matter creation, searches every field in your database, and routes the result to the right workflow without staff intervention is not a future goal. It is a Lawmatics configuration Ettinger Tech builds today. Schedule a free Discovery Call to see what it looks like for your firm.
Schedule Your Free Discovery Call