Business Strategy
How to Run Faster, More Reliable Conflict Checks at Intake
An operations guide for firms whose conflict search still depends on someone typing a few names into a search box.
A conflict check is only as good as the names someone thought to search.
At most firms, a conflict check starts when someone types a prospective client's name, and perhaps the other side's, into a search box. If nothing comes back, the matter moves on. The search is fast. The problem is what it cannot see.
This guide covers the operations side of conflict checking: what to capture at intake, how to search, how to present results and how to record decisions. Whether a result is a conflict, and how to resolve it, is a matter for a lawyer under the rules of your jurisdiction and your firm's policy. Nothing here is a substitute for that judgment.
What 28 Published Case Studies Show
We reviewed 28 published case studies in which software firms describe projects for law firms and legal-services companies. Hours saved was the most common result, reported in 10 of the 28. Better visibility, faster turnaround, wider adoption and added capacity followed at 6 each. Client intake or onboarding appeared in 9 of the 28 projects, second only to document processing at 13.
The gap is accuracy. Only 3 of the 28 report fewer errors, and only 2 report a compliance gain. Intake is being automated for speed far more often than for getting the right answer, and conflict checking is the step where the right answer matters most.
- 10 of 28report staff hours saved, the most common result
- 9 of 28automate client intake or onboarding, second only to document work (13)
- 3 of 28report fewer errors, and only 2 report a compliance gain
Self-reported results from case studies other software firms have published. See Sources & method below.
Speed still counts. At one boutique immigration law firm, "the entire client intake process is 100 percent automated," which "saved the law firm 30-60 minutes per client inquiry". A faster intake that still relies on a quick name search, though, simply reaches a weak check sooner. These figures are self-reported by the firms that published them.
Where does your team sit? The 14-day Ops Efficiency audit measures it. Book the audit
Why Name Searches Miss Conflicts
A conflict search can only find what it was asked to look for, in data it can reach. The usual gaps are:
Capture The Right Parties At Intake
The check is only as good as the party list. Work with your attorneys to decide what intake should capture for each practice area, then make the intake form ask for it.
| Party type | What intake should capture | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Prospective client | Full legal name, former names, other names used | Most conflicts hide behind a different version of the name |
| Adverse parties | Every opposing person or entity named in the inquiry | The core of the check |
| Related entities | Parents, subsidiaries, owners and directors, where relevant | Links that share no name with the client |
| Other involved people | Spouses, co-parties, guarantors, insurers, where relevant | Often missed when not asked directly |
When new parties join a matter later, the same capture and search should run again.
- Capture Every Party And Alias At Intake
- Search One Index Of Open And Closed Matters
- Match Variations, Not Just Exact Names
- Show Each Hit With The Reason It Matched
- A Lawyer Decides, And The Decision Is Recorded
Build One Index, Then Search It Well
Put every party from every open and closed matter into one searchable index, with former names and known relationships attached. That is usually the largest piece of work, and the most valuable: it includes cleaning duplicates and pulling parties out of old systems and spreadsheets.
Then widen the search sensibly:
Common Pitfalls
Record The Decision
Every check should leave a record: who ran it, which names were searched, what came back, who reviewed the hits, what they decided and when. If a decision involves further steps under your firm's policy, record that those steps happened. A complete record protects the firm and makes it possible to audit the process.
What To Measure
Where To Start
Pull twenty recent conflict checks and re-run them with every party the matter eventually involved, including former names and related companies. The difference between the two result sets shows how much your current search misses, and which data to fix first.
Delta Technologies builds intake and conflict-check workflows around the systems a firm already uses. Explore our services, read more on the Delta blog, or book a systems review to see where your intake and conflict process can be faster and more reliable.
Sources & method
Figures are self-reported results from case studies other software firms have published. Delta did not produce these results. Where a source says “up to”, so do we.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Know a business that’s struggling to keep up with changing customer expectations?
Share this article.
Tell Us What You’re Seeing
How are customer expectations changing in your industry? Share your thoughts privately with Delta Insights.