A conflicts check is the screening a law firm runs before accepting a new client or matter to find out whether taking the work would compromise what the firm owes to anyone it already represents, used to represent, or spoke with as a prospective client. The firm compares the names, entities, and subject matter of the proposed engagement against a database of current clients, former clients, opposing parties, related companies, and key individuals, and any overlap gets flagged for a lawyer or compliance officer to evaluate. Every state’s version of the ethics rules requires this screening, and the consequences of skipping it range from being removed from a case mid-stream to forfeiting every dollar the firm earned on it.
The check isn’t only about catching two clients on opposite sides of a lawsuit. It also surfaces subtler problems, like advising a corporation on a merger while separately representing a competitor in an unrelated deal. Even without direct adversity, a conflict exists whenever there’s a meaningful risk that divided loyalties will affect the quality of the firm’s advice.
What the Check Is Looking For
Current Client Conflicts
The most straightforward conflict is two existing clients landing on opposite sides of a dispute or transaction. Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer cannot represent a client if the representation creates a “concurrent conflict of interest,” which includes directly adverse representation or any situation where one client’s interests significantly limit what the lawyer can do for another.1American Bar Association. Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest Current Clients The loyalty obligation is broad: without consent, a lawyer cannot advocate against a current client even in a completely unrelated matter.2American Bar Association. Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest Current Clients – Comment
Former Client Conflicts
Past representations create lasting obligations. A lawyer who handled a matter for a former client cannot later represent someone else in the same or a substantially related matter if the new client’s interests are adverse to the former client’s, unless the former client gives written consent.3American Bar Association. Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.9 – Duties to Former Clients The concern is that the lawyer learned confidential information during the earlier representation, and using it against the former client would be a betrayal of trust.
Prospective Client Conflicts
Even a preliminary consultation can create a conflict. Someone who discusses a potential legal matter with a lawyer qualifies as a “prospective client,” and the lawyer cannot later represent someone with adverse interests in a related matter if the consultation revealed information that could harm the prospective client.4American Bar Association. Rule 1.18 Duties to Prospective Client This is why many firms deliberately limit what they learn during intake calls until the conflicts check clears. Absorbing too much detail from someone the firm ultimately cannot represent can disqualify the firm from the other side.
Why One Lawyer’s Conflict Becomes the Firm’s Conflict
Conflicts don’t stay with the individual lawyer. Under the imputation rule, when any lawyer in a firm has a conflict, every other lawyer in that firm is treated as if they have the same conflict.5American Bar Association. Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest General Rule A 500-lawyer firm where one associate briefly worked on a matter years ago can find the entire firm locked out of a large engagement on the other side.
This makes lateral hiring the usual flashpoint. When an attorney moves firms, they bring every conflict from their prior work with them, and the new firm has to screen each hire against its existing client base before the start date. If a conflict surfaces, the firm can sometimes avoid firm-wide disqualification by walling the new lawyer off through a formal screen: the conflicted attorney gets no access to the matter, earns no part of the fee, and the former client receives written notice describing the screening procedures in place.5American Bar Association. Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest General Rule Miss the window to set that screen up before the hire starts work, and the exception may not be available.
What Information the Check Needs
A thorough check requires more than the prospective client’s name. Firms collect:
- All individual and entity names on every side of the matter, including aliases and former names.
- Related entities such as parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates that could create indirect conflicts.
- Adverse parties and their known representatives.
- Key individuals: officers, directors, witnesses, and others materially involved.
- The subject matter of the engagement, so the firm can spot overlap with past or current work even when party names don’t match.
If someone enters only a company name but omits the CEO, a personal conflict tied to that individual slips through. The check is only as reliable as the data fed into it.
How Firms Run the Check
Most firms use dedicated conflicts-checking software that stores every client, matter, and opposing party the firm has ever handled. When new data is entered, the system searches for exact and partial matches across the full database, including closed matters that may be decades old. A name that’s close but not identical gets flagged as a near match for human review, because misspellings, name changes, and abbreviations are common.
The software surfaces potential hits, but a person makes the final call. A compliance officer or designated attorney reviews each flag to decide whether it’s a real conflict, a potential one that needs more investigation, or a false positive. The reviewer looks at the nature of both engagements, which lawyers are involved, what confidential information was exchanged, and whether the interests are actually adverse. Smaller firms without dedicated software may run the same process through spreadsheets or manual file reviews, which widens the margin for error.
What Happens When a Conflict Is Found
Informed Consent
The most common path forward is getting the affected clients to agree to the representation despite the conflict. This isn’t a rubber stamp. The lawyer has to explain the specific circumstances creating the conflict, the real risks involved, and what alternatives exist, and the consent has to be confirmed in writing.1American Bar Association. Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest Current Clients A vague disclosure buried in boilerplate doesn’t satisfy the requirement. Clients have to actually understand what they’re agreeing to.
Ethical Screens
In some situations consent isn’t required if the firm can wall off the conflicted lawyer entirely. An ethical screen, sometimes called an information barrier, isolates the conflicted lawyer from any involvement in the matter. The screened lawyer cannot discuss the case, access related files, or share in the fees. For former-client conflicts tied to a lateral hire, the Model Rules specifically allow this approach as long as written notice goes to the former client and the firm certifies compliance at reasonable intervals.5American Bar Association. Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest General Rule
Declining the Work
Not every conflict can be cured. If any affected party refuses to consent, the firm has to walk away. Some conflicts cannot be waived at all. A lawyer cannot take on a conflicted representation unless the lawyer genuinely believes they can still provide competent, diligent service to every affected client, the representation isn’t prohibited by law, and the matter doesn’t involve one client asserting claims against another client the firm represents in the same proceeding.1American Bar Association. Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest Current Clients When any of those conditions can’t be met, no amount of client willingness changes the answer.
What Happens If the Check Fails
A missed conflict triggers consequences that stack on each other.
Opposing counsel who discovers the conflict can move to disqualify the firm. If the court grants it, the client loses their lawyer in the middle of the case and has to bring new counsel up to speed, and the delay benefits the other side.
A client whose lawyer had an undisclosed conflict can also sue to recover every fee paid for the tainted representation. A lawyer who violates the conflict rules can be discharged for cause and loses the right to compensation for services rendered. The client doesn’t have to prove they were harmed by the conflict; the ethical violation alone can support a fee forfeiture claim.
Separately, the client may have a malpractice claim if the conflict actually caused harm, such as a worse settlement, a lost case, or leaked confidential information. Unlike fee forfeiture, these claims require proof of damages.
State bar authorities can also impose discipline ranging from a private reprimand to suspension or disbarment. Conflict-of-interest violations are among the recurring grounds; a single lapse might draw a reprimand, while a pattern suggests a deeper problem and draws harsher sanctions.
The common thread is that none of these consequences require the conflict to have changed the outcome of the matter. The failure to check, disclose, and address the conflict is itself the violation, which is why the screening process exists before the engagement letter is ever signed.