More clients, more complexity, more opportunities for something to get overlooked during a conflict check.
Plenty of firms still rely on spreadsheets, disconnected systems, or informal knowledge-sharing to avoid conflicts of interest. The problem is, those methods miss things—past client connections, archived matters, name variations, even indirect relationships. And when something slips through, it’s rarely a small issue. It can mean stepping back from a matter, reassigning a case, or worse—exposing the firm to risk that should have been preventable.
Processes that worked when the firm was smaller or the caseloads were simpler often don’t hold up once the volume grows. More clients, more complexity, more opportunities for something to get overlooked during a conflict check.
Your Current Conflict Check Process Isn’t Built to Catch Enough
Most firms run some form of conflict check before taking on new cases and matters. But the effectiveness of that process depends on three things:
- how much information you’re searching
- how searchable that information actually is
- how you’re wording your query
Here’s where things tend to break down:
- You’re only checking active files, not historical data
- You’re relying on staff to remember names, relationships, or prior involvement
- You’re missing slight variations in names or firms
- You don’t have an audit trail to show what was checked—or how thoroughly
None of this is about intent. It’s about system design. If your tools can’t connect the dots for you, you’re left piecing them together manually. And that’s when mistakes happen.
There’s nothing worse than finding out too late
Every firm has its own version of this story. A conflict comes to light weeks into a matter—sometimes after discovery has started, strategy has been shared, or documents have been exchanged.
At that point, your choices are limited. You might try to get a waiver. You might withdraw. Either way, it slows everything down, damages trust, and puts your team in a defensive position.
These are the kinds of avoidable problems that cost firms time, clients, and reputation. But they can be prevented if the conflict check process is taken seriously—and built into the way your firm works every day.
You Need a System That Doesn’t Make You Second-Guess the Results
What a conflict check should be is a quick, reliable part of your intake process. When the process is built into your legal practice management software, and the data is centralized and kept current, you can actually trust what comes back.
CARET Legal handles conflict checks by pulling from your full contact list, case history, communications, and matter data—whether a case is active or archived. It surfaces matches even when buried in content and is hard to find manually.
You get:
- A single, complete source of truth
- Structured reports that show exactly why something was flagged
- Less back-and-forth between systems to piece things together
- Faster intake decisions based on better information
CARET Legal gives firms a conflict-checking tool that’s integrated, thorough, and consistent—without adding more administrative burden. And it works because:
- It pulls from everywhere: clients, matters, notes, billing, even past email records
- It includes data related to matters and clients whether current or former
- It runs quickly, without requiring separate logins or workflows
- It supports advanced searches to narrow or broaden scope
This is what conflict checking looks like when it’s done right: fast, accurate, and trustworthy.
If You Can’t Trust Your Conflict Checks, It’s Time to Rethink the Process
You shouldn’t have to cross your fingers when a new client walks in. And your team shouldn’t be patching together search results from five different systems.
Whether you’re handling routine matters or complex, multi-party litigation, your ability to identify potential conflicts quickly and confidently is non-negotiable.
Interested? Let’s work together to see how we can close the gaps and strengthen your process. Start your free trial today.
