Conflict reviews

Before an intake becomes an engagement, counsel needs a record of the conflict check. Each review identifies its matter, reviewer, review date, decision and evidence. A Clear result supports proceeding; Conflict and More Information require a different response from counsel. The decision is a legal judgment, so the reviewer should be identifiable and the basis legible to another attorney.

Start from the matter’s organization and counterparty, then inspect the relevant information before recording the conflict decision. The review record preserves what the reviewer saw at that point. If new information arrives, enter a further review with its own date and evidence instead of silently rewriting the earlier reason. The matter status lets the coordinator see that engagement remains under consideration.

• Keep context attached. Every decision points back to its matter and parties.
• Name the reviewer. A dated result without a responsible attorney is difficult to explain later.
• Separate outcomes. More Information calls for follow-up; it is not a clearance.

Agree who may make a conflict decision, what supporting evidence staff must collect and how to handle a second review. Use an intake with a counterparty already present in the directory and another with an incomplete identity. Ask the supervising attorney how the team will record the distinction between an actual conflict and a question that needs more facts. The coordinator needs to know when to keep the matter in review.

A prospective client names a counterparty whose directory record has a similar name to another organization. The coordinator links the intended counterparty to the matter and sends its details to the supervising attorney. The attorney asks for further information and records More Information with the evidence available that day. The case stays in conflict review while the team checks identity.

When the distinction is resolved, counsel records a new dated review with its own reason. A Clear result supports engagement; a Conflict result explains why the work cannot proceed as requested. In either outcome, an auditor can follow the matter to the review records and tell which evidence informed each decision.

• Conflict review matters — Matters awaiting a legal decision on engagement.
• Conflict decisions — Dated outcomes with reviewer and supporting evidence.
• Matter intake queue — New matters that may need a conflict check next.

Follow intake to engagement for the case transition. Review roles before assigning decision access. Start with a pilot using a real conflict-review example.