Run conflict checks on new matters
When a new matter is opened, the system extracts the parties and related names, searches your client and matter records, and lists possible conflicts with the match reasoning. A lawyer clears or escalates each one. For firms where conflict checks wait on a person with the database access.
Function: Legal and compliance · Industry: Professional services
Run conflict checks on new matters
6 steps
At a glance
- Trigger
- A new matter or prospective client is submitted.
- Typical inputs
- New matter intake form
- Client, adverse party and related-party records
- Past matter data
- Conflict policy
- Systems it usually connects to
- Clio
- NetDocuments
- iManage
- Outlook
- How the work splits
3 rules, 2 model, 1 person steps
How it runs, step by step
6 steps, each tagged by what does the work. Rules are fixed logic, a model reads or drafts, and a person decides.
- Rules Fixed logic in code
- Model AI reads or drafts, with a confidence score
- Person A named person decides
- 1
Extract the names
ModelA model pulls parties, related companies and individuals from the intake form and attached documents.
- 2
Search the records
RulesNames and aliases are searched across your clients, adverse parties and past matters using exact and fuzzy matching.
- 3
Assess the matches
ModelA model explains each potential match, such as a former client with a similar name, and suggests whether it needs attention.
- 4
Clear or escalate
PersonA lawyer or the conflicts team reviews each potential match and decides whether it is a conflict.
- 5
Record the decision
RulesThe search, the matches and the decision are stored with who decided and when.
- 6
Notify the requester
RulesThe matter opens or is held according to the decision, with the reason communicated to the requester.
Where people approve
The decisions that stay with your team, whatever the confidence score says.
- The conflicts team decides every potential match.
- Partners decide waivers and ethical walls.
- No matter opens until the check is cleared.
KPIs to track
What to measure, before and after. Targets come from your own baseline.
- 01Hours from request to decision
- 02Potential matches reviewed per matter
- 03Matters opened before clearance (should be zero)
- 04Checks that needed a second search
Questions about this workflow
Can a model decide that there is no conflict?
It can rank and explain matches, but a person clears them. A missed conflict has professional consequences, so the model widens the search and the lawyer makes the call.
Does it use data from other clients?
Only within your own records and under your confidentiality rules. Search results are visible to the people who are allowed to see them, and access is logged.
Which steps use rules, a model and a person?
Rules: search the records; record the decision; notify the requester. Model: extract the names; assess the matches. Person: clear or escalate. Rules are fixed logic in code. A model reads or drafts and reports its confidence. A named person decides.
What do we need to start?
Typically: new matter intake form; client, adverse party and related-party records; past matter data; conflict policy. You also need read access to Clio, NetDocuments, iManage and Outlook, or the equivalents you use. A workflow audit measures your volumes and past cases first, then gives a fixed price for the build, so you can decide with real numbers.