Running Conflict Checks in a Small Firm

Conflict checking fails in small firms for practical reasons rather than negligent ones: the record of who the firm has acted for is spread across a case management system, an old spreadsheet, and the memory of whoever has been there longest. The check happens, but it searches an incomplete universe.

Build one searchable list

The single highest-value step is consolidating every name the firm has ever touched into one place that can be searched in seconds. It does not need to be sophisticated.

• Clients, current and former, with matter references and dates.

• Adverse parties on every matter.

• Related parties — subsidiaries, directors, spouses, trustees, guarantors.

• Prospective clients who disclosed confidential information and were declined.

• Referral sources where a relationship could create a conflict.

The fourth category is the one most often missing. A prospective client who described their case in a consultation has given you confidential information, and that can preclude you from acting against them even though they never became a client.

Naming discipline does the real work

A search only finds what was entered consistently. Agree a convention and apply it without exception: full legal names, entity names as registered, former names recorded, and a note of common variants. 'Bill' and 'William', 'Acme Ltd' and 'Acme Limited' are the gaps that a search sails past.

A conflicts list is only as good as its worst-typed entry.

Search before the confidential conversation

The check belongs at first contact, before the prospective client explains their matter in detail — not at the point of opening a file. Once you have heard the confidential material, the harm the check exists to prevent has already occurred.

Search variants, not just the name given

• Partial strings rather than exact matches — 'Ander' finds Anderson and Andersen.

• Both spouses in any family matter.

• The parent company as well as the trading entity.

• Former names, trading names and abbreviations.

Record the negative result

A search that found nothing is evidence, and only if it was written down. Save who ran it, when, which terms they used, and the outcome, against the matter. A file that shows a documented clear search is in a very different position from one where the check is remembered but unrecorded.

What constitutes a disqualifying conflict, and whether informed consent or a screen can cure it, is governed by the conduct rules of your jurisdiction. This describes the operational scaffolding; the substantive test is a matter for those rules and, where it is close, for a second opinion.