A Conflict-Checking System a Solo Can Actually Run

A conflict check is not a name search followed by a green light. It is a short professional review supported by a record: who the prospective client is, who else is involved, what the new matter concerns, what the firm previously did, which relationships produced possible matches, and what the lawyer decided.

That distinction matters in a solo practice. The lawyer may know every open matter, but memory is still a poor database for former clients, consultations that never became matters, trade names, related entities, spouses, witnesses, insurers, and people whose names changed. The operating goal is not to automate the legal conclusion. It is to make sure the lawyer receives a complete enough set of possible matches to reach and document the conclusion.

The ABA Model Rules are a starting point, not the rulebook for every jurisdiction. Rule 1.7 addresses current-client conflicts. Rule 1.9 addresses duties to former clients. Rule 1.10 addresses imputation within a firm. Rule 1.18 addresses prospective clients. Check the rules, comments, cases, and ethics guidance that govern the firm.

Build one searchable party record

The search is only as good as the names the firm kept. A matter record should distinguish the role each person or organization played instead of placing every name in one notes field.

At a minimum, capture:

• Current and former clients, including prior names
• Prospective clients who provided information even when the firm declined the matter
• Adverse parties and aligned parties
• Spouses, household members, beneficiaries, fiduciaries, co-debtors, and other materially involved people
• Parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, trade names, and individual owners when the relationship may matter
• Counsel, witnesses, experts, insurers, medical providers, employers, lenders, and other recurring participants when the firm's practice requires them
• The matter type, general subject, dates of representation, responsible lawyer, and current status

This is not a direction to collect every name that appears in every document. The firm should define which roles can create or reveal a conflict in its work, then capture those roles consistently.

Collect enough information before the consultation becomes substantive

Rule 1.18 is why a conflict process must begin before a prospect gives the firm a detailed narrative. A useful opening screen asks for the minimum facts needed to identify the people, organizations, and matter without inviting unnecessary confidential information.

The first pass usually needs:

1. Prospective client's complete legal name, prior names, and entity names
2. Names and roles of adverse or potentially adverse parties
3. Other clients, co-parties, beneficiaries, family members, or entities materially involved
4. A short matter description and the event or transaction involved
5. Any immediate deadline that affects how quickly the firm must decide

If the first pass produces a possible match, pause substantive intake. The lawyer can then decide what additional information is reasonably needed to evaluate the match without collecting more than the firm should receive.

Search in both directions

Run the proposed representation against the full party record, then look at the result from both sides.

• Is the prospective client adverse to a current client?
• Is a proposed adverse party a current or former client?
• Did the firm receive material information from a prospective client whose interests are now adverse?
• Does the new matter appear related to a former representation?
• Is a conflict personal to the lawyer, or could it be imputed to someone else in the firm?
• Does a related entity, family relationship, or fiduciary role change the analysis?

Exact-name matching is not enough. Search aliases, prior names, common misspellings, entity abbreviations, and normalized versions of names. A fuzzy result should be presented as a possible match, never as an automatic conflict.

Give every possible match a disposition

The ABA comment to Rule 1.7 describes a sequence: identify the clients, determine whether a conflict exists, determine whether the representation may proceed despite it, and obtain informed consent confirmed in writing when the rules permit and require it. The operating record should preserve that sequence without pretending that software made the judgment.

Use a small set of dispositions:

Do not use “cleared” as a blank conclusion. A year later, the value is being able to reconstruct what was searched and why the result was resolved.

Recheck when the matter changes

A conflict check at intake is a snapshot. New parties, amended pleadings, substituted counsel, added creditors, a corporate acquisition, a newly identified witness, or a change in the firm's client relationships can alter the answer.

Define recheck events for the firm's practices. Examples include:

• A new adverse party or co-party enters the matter
• A corporate client or opponent changes ownership or affiliation
• The firm is asked to represent another participant in the same transaction or family system
• A witness or expert becomes a material participant
• A former consultation becomes relevant to a new matter
• Lawyers or staff join the firm with prior representations that require review

The matter should show whether the check is current for the parties presently involved, not merely that someone clicked a conflict button on opening day.

Operating artifact: conflict search and disposition register

For every check, retain these fields:

• Check ID and date
• Prospective client or new party
• Matter description
• Names and aliases searched
• Roles attached to each searched name
• Data sources searched
• Possible matches returned
• Related matter and relationship for each match
• Reviewing lawyer
• Disposition and short rationale
• Governing rule or jurisdictional source when analysis was required
• Consent, screening, notice, or decline record when applicable
• Recheck trigger and due date

Audit the register quarterly. Sample closed, declined, and accepted prospects. Confirm that the search happened before substantive work, that possible matches received a disposition, and that new-party events triggered a recheck.

What technology should and should not do

Technology should normalize names, search the complete party record, surface possible relationships, prevent a matter from silently advancing while review is open, and retain the search and disposition history.

Technology should not decide whether matters are substantially related, whether a conflict is consentable, whether informed consent is adequate, or whether screening is permitted and effective. Those conclusions depend on governing rules and facts that a matching system cannot resolve.

The mature workflow is simple: collect only enough to search, search a complete record, route possible matches to the lawyer, record the disposition, and recheck when the cast of the matter changes.

Sources checked

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 and comments
• ABA Model Rule 1.9 – Duties to Former Clients
• ABA Model Rule 1.10 – Imputation of Conflicts
• ABA Model Rule 1.18 – Duties to Prospective Clients

Sources were checked on August 13, 2026. The firm's jurisdiction-specific rules and current facts control.

DocketBuddy records prospective clients, matter parties, aliases, and opposing parties, runs possible-match searches at intake, and keeps the lawyer's disposition with the matter. The system surfaces the question. The lawyer decides the conflict.