A conflict of interest check is one of the few things in legal practice where the consequences of failure are catastrophic and the process to prevent failure is straightforward. And yet, a meaningful number of solo and small firm attorneys are running conflicts from a spreadsheet — or worse, from memory.
The logic is understandable. When you have handled 50 matters over three years, you know your clients. You remember the names. You remember who was on the other side. A formal conflicts system feels like overhead for a problem you can manage in your head.
Then you hit 200 matters. Then 500. Then a potential client sits across from you, and their name sounds familiar but you cannot place why. Was their spouse a former client? Was their business partner an opposing party in something two years ago? Was their company mentioned in a document you reviewed for a different matter entirely?
That is when memory fails. And when memory fails in a conflicts context, the results are not a billing error or a missed deadline — they are a disqualification motion, a malpractice claim, and a bar complaint. Often all three.
What the Rules Actually Require
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct address conflicts of interest primarily in Rules 1.7 (current client conflicts), 1.8 (specific prohibited transactions), 1.9 (duties to former clients), and 1.10 (imputation within a firm).
The core obligation is clear: before accepting any new representation, you must determine whether that representation creates a conflict with any current or former client. This requires checking the prospective client, all parties to the prospective matter, and all related entities against your entire history of representation.
Warning
The duty extends beyond clients. You must check opposing parties, related parties, witnesses, and entities associated with the matter. A conflict with an opposing party from a prior case is still a conflict — even if that person was never your client.
This is not optional. It is not a best practice recommendation. It is a mandatory ethical obligation, and the duty to check is the attorney's regardless of whether the attorney has a system to do it.
The question is not whether to run conflicts. The question is whether your system for running them is adequate.
Why Spreadsheets Fail
The Search Problem
A spreadsheet conflict check requires you to search for a name across your entire client and matter history. Excel and Google Sheets have search functions. Those functions look for exact text matches.
Legal conflicts do not work on exact matches. You need to catch:
- Name variations. Robert Smith, Bob Smith, R. Smith, Robert J. Smith, Robert Smith Jr.
- Entity variations. Smith & Associates LLC, Smith Associates, Smith and Associates, Smith & Assoc.
- Maiden names and name changes. A former client who has since married and changed their last name.
- Related entities. The prospective client's company, their subsidiary, their parent company, their business partner's firm.
- Phonetic similarities. Smyth vs. Smith. Gonzales vs. Gonzalez. Names that sound the same but are spelled differently.
A spreadsheet search for "Smith" will find "Smith" but not "Smyth." It will not flag that "Robert" and "Bob" are the same person unless you search for both. It will not connect "Smith & Associates LLC" to "Bob Smith" unless you have a column that links entities to individuals — and if you do, you are building a relational database in a tool that is not a relational database.
The Completeness Problem
A spreadsheet conflict check is only as complete as the data you entered into the spreadsheet. If you forgot to add an opposing party. If you neglected to record the names of all parties to a transaction. If you did not include the name of a witness who might create a conflict in a future matter. Your search returns clean, and the conflict exists.
The discipline required to maintain a comprehensive spreadsheet — entering every party, every entity, every related person for every matter — is significant. Most attorneys start with good intentions and gradually become less thorough as the spreadsheet grows and the data entry becomes tedious.
The Historical Problem
Three years into practice, your spreadsheet has 500 rows. Can you confirm that every row has complete party information? That every name is spelled correctly? That you consistently formatted entity names? That you did not accidentally delete a row during a sort operation?
Spreadsheets do not have audit trails. They do not have data validation. They do not prevent you from accidentally overwriting or deleting records. A single accidental sort that breaks the relationship between columns can corrupt your entire conflict database — silently, without any error message.
The Multi-Attorney Problem
If your firm has more than one attorney, a spreadsheet conflict system requires either a shared spreadsheet (with all the versioning and access problems that implies) or individual spreadsheets that must be cross-referenced for every check. Neither approach scales. Neither approach is reliable.
What a Proper Conflicts System Looks Like
An adequate conflict checking system has five characteristics.
Comprehensive data capture. Every new matter triggers the entry of all parties: client, opposing party, opposing counsel, related entities, witnesses, and any other person or entity connected to the matter. This data entry is part of the matter opening workflow, not a separate task that can be skipped.
Fuzzy matching. The search algorithm catches similar names, not just exact matches. "Gonzales" flags "Gonzalez." "Robert" flags "Bob." Entity name variations are linked. Phonetic matching catches names that sound alike but are spelled differently.
Relational linking. People are connected to entities. Entities are connected to other entities. When you search for "Bob Smith," the system also flags "Smith & Associates LLC" because Bob Smith is listed as the principal. This relational structure is what separates a conflicts database from a contact list.
Audit trail. Every conflict check is logged — who ran it, when, what terms were searched, and what results were returned. If a conflict is later discovered, you can demonstrate that you ran a check at intake and the conflict was not present in your records at that time. This documentation is critical to a defense against a conflict-related malpractice claim.
Mandatory workflow integration. The conflict check is a required step in the matter opening process. It cannot be skipped, bypassed, or deferred. The system does not allow you to open a new matter without documenting that a conflict check was performed.
Tip
The audit trail is as important as the check itself. If a conflict surfaces later, the question will be whether you ran a reasonable check at the time of intake. A documented search history demonstrates diligence. An absence of documentation suggests you did not check at all.
How to Run Conflicts Properly
At Intake — Before the Initial Consultation
The first conflict check happens before you meet with the prospective client. As soon as you have the prospective client's name and the nature of the matter, run a search. If the initial check reveals a conflict, you can decline the consultation before any confidential information is exchanged.
This pre-consultation check is important. Once a prospective client shares confidential information during a consultation, your duties under Rule 1.18 (duties to prospective clients) attach — even if you never take the case. Running conflicts before the consultation protects you from receiving information you cannot un-hear.
At Matter Opening — Comprehensive Check
When you decide to accept a matter, run a full conflict check that includes:
- The client (individual and any associated entities)
- All opposing parties (individuals and entities)
- Opposing counsel
- Any known witnesses
- Related parties (spouses, business partners, parent companies, subsidiaries)
- The subject matter itself, if it overlaps with a current client's interests
Document the search terms used, the date of the search, and the results. Store this documentation in the matter file.
Periodically — When Circumstances Change
Conflicts can arise after a matter is opened. A new party enters the case. Your existing client acquires a company that is adverse to another client. A witness in one matter becomes a prospective client in another.
For active matters, conflicts should be re-checked when new parties are added. For your overall practice, a periodic review of your conflicts database against your active matters is good practice — particularly when you take on a new practice area or a new type of client.
Technology Options
Practice Management Software
Most modern legal practice management platforms include conflict checking. Clio, MyCase, PracticePanther, and similar tools maintain a contacts database that links people and entities to matters with defined roles (client, opposing party, witness, etc.). Their conflict check features search across all contacts and flag potential matches when you enter a new matter.
These built-in tools are not perfect — many lack fuzzy matching and rely on exact or near-exact name matches — but they are significantly better than a spreadsheet because they maintain relational data (who is connected to which matter in which role) and provide audit trails.
If you already use a practice management platform, start with its built-in conflict checking. Learn its limitations, and supplement manually where needed.
Dedicated Conflicts Software
For firms with higher volume or more complex conflict profiles (insurance defense firms, firms with entity clients that have many subsidiaries), dedicated conflicts software like iManage Conflicts or similar tools offer advanced features: phonetic matching, corporate family trees, automated screening of new matters against the entire database, and detailed reporting.
These tools are typically priced for mid-size and large firms. For most solo and small firm attorneys, the practice management platform's built-in features are sufficient.
Minimum Viable System
If you are not ready for practice management software and need something better than a spreadsheet, here is the minimum viable approach:
- Create a database (even a simple one in Airtable or similar tools) with three linked tables: Matters, People, and Roles.
- Every matter has linked people. Every person has a defined role in each matter they are connected to.
- When a new matter comes in, search the People table for the prospective client and all known parties.
- Log the search and results in a conflicts check record linked to the matter.
This is not ideal, but it is relational, searchable, and documented — which puts it ahead of a spreadsheet on every dimension that matters.
What to Do When You Find a Conflict
Finding a conflict does not automatically mean you cannot take the case. The rules distinguish between conflicts that can be waived and conflicts that cannot.
Non-waivable conflicts include representing both sides in the same litigation and situations where representation is prohibited by law. These are absolute bars.
Waivable conflicts can proceed if: the attorney reasonably believes they can provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client, the representation is not prohibited by law, the representation does not involve asserting a claim by one client against another in the same proceeding, and each affected client gives informed consent confirmed in writing.
The key phrase is "informed consent confirmed in writing." This means the client must understand the nature of the conflict, the risks of proceeding despite the conflict, and the alternatives available to them. A boilerplate waiver paragraph buried in an engagement letter is not adequate informed consent.
If you find a potential conflict, consult your jurisdiction's ethics resources or contact your bar association's ethics hotline before proceeding. The cost of a 15-minute ethics call is negligible compared to the cost of a disqualification motion or malpractice claim.
Building the Habit
The biggest challenge with conflict checking is not technology. It is discipline. The technology exists at every price point. The rules are clear. The risk of non-compliance is severe. And yet, attorneys skip conflict checks because they are busy, because they think they remember, because the prospective client is a referral from a trusted source, or because the matter seems too small to warrant a formal check.
Every conflict that results in a bar complaint started with someone deciding the check was unnecessary for this particular matter.
Build the process into your intake workflow so that it happens automatically — not as a separate step you can choose to skip, but as a required part of opening any new matter. Make the conflict check the first thing you do when a prospective client contacts you, before the consultation, before any substantive discussion.
The check takes two minutes when you have a proper system. The consequences of skipping it can take years to resolve.
For a broader look at how conflicts fit into your overall intake process, see our guide on turning intake into engagement. And for more on malpractice prevention across your practice, read malpractice prevention strategies for solo attorneys.