When to run a conflict check on a new intake — and what to do if one surfaces

The fastest intake replies in the world don't help if the lead stalls for three days at the conflict-check step. For solo and small-firm attorneys, this is where the funnel actually leaks — not at first contact, but in the limbo between "I'd love to take a call" and "let me confirm we don't have a conflict and I'll send the engagement letter."

This article is about cutting that limbo to under 24 hours and handling the conversation cleanly when a conflict does surface.

The minimum-viable conflict check

The full conflict check happens before you accept a representation. But for intake purposes, you can run a fast first-pass check in under 5 minutes using just the information from the prospect's email:

1. Prospect's full legal name. Get this from the email or signature line. Ask if it's not there.
2. Adverse parties named in the inquiry. "My landlord," "my employer," "the other driver" — any person or entity on the other side. Ask the prospect to name them in your reply.
3. Related entities. Spouse, business co-owners, parent companies, related LLCs. For business matters, ask about the corporate family.
4. Run the names through your matter management system. Clio, MyCase, PracticePanther, or — for the most solo of solos — a tagged Google Contacts export and a spreadsheet.

The first-pass check is fine to do alongside the intake call rather than before it. You're not committing to anything by talking — your no-attorney-client-relationship disclaimer is doing that work. But you absolutely commit by signing the engagement letter, and the conflict check must clear before that.

The exact language for asking about adverse parties

Most attorneys feel awkward asking the prospect to name names. They shouldn't. The prospect has a vested interest in helping you clear the conflict check — it's literally between them and being represented. The trick is asking in a way that doesn't sound like an interrogation.

Add this to your first reply (or your intake-call agenda):

Quick logistics question: before our call, I'll want to make sure my firm doesn't have a conflict with anyone on the other side of this matter. Could you list the names of any individuals, companies, or LLCs involved on the opposing side? Anyone you'd consider an adverse party. Spouses or business co-owners count.

Three sentences. Plain. The prospect understands why you're asking, and you have what you need.

The four kinds of conflicts (and what to do with each)

Not all conflicts are the same. Knowing which kind you're looking at decides your next move.

Direct conflict — current client on the other side. You are currently representing someone who is adverse to the prospect's matter. This one is bright-line: you decline, refer out, and document the decision. No exceptions, no waivers — your duty to the existing client controls.

Direct conflict — former client on the other side. You previously represented someone now adverse. Whether you can take the new matter depends on whether it is "substantially related" to the former representation under your state's Rule 1.9. Default assumption: if you're not sure, you can't. Get an ethics opinion or refer out. Don't try to thread this on your own.

Issue conflict — same-side dispute. Two of your clients on the same side of the same dispute, with potentially divergent interests (co-defendants, business co-owners). Often waivable with informed consent, but the consent must be in writing and must explain the divergent-interests risk. Don't rush this; it's the conflict most likely to come back as a malpractice claim later.

No actual conflict — but related work. You represented the prospect's spouse last year on an unrelated matter, or you did real estate work for a company the prospect now wants to sue. Sometimes this is fine, sometimes not. The question is whether confidences from the prior representation could be material in the new one. When the connection is real but the conflict isn't direct, write the analysis down before you proceed — your bar will thank you if anyone ever asks.

The script for declining due to conflict

This is the conversation most attorneys fumble, because it feels like rejection and the temptation is to over-explain. Don't. Two short sentences, plus a referral, is the right amount of words.

Hi [prospect],

After running our conflict check, it turns out my firm has a relationship that prevents us from taking your matter. I'm not able to share the specifics, but I wanted to let you know promptly so you can pursue other counsel.

If it would help, I can recommend a few attorneys in [region] who handle this kind of work — [name 1] at [firm 1] and [name 2] at [firm 2] would both be worth reaching out to.

Wishing you the best.

[Your name]

Notice three things. You don't apologize. You don't reveal who the conflict is with (your duty to the conflicting party prevents you from saying). And you provide a referral. The referral is what turns a closed door into a positive interaction the prospect remembers — and often, refers other matters to you in the future.

When the prospect pushes for details

Sometimes the prospect, frustrated, asks who the conflict is with. The answer is the same regardless of how they ask: you can't say.

I understand the frustration — I wish I could explain. The ethics rules I'm bound by don't allow me to disclose who we represent or have represented. The conflict is real, and the right move for you is to find counsel who can represent you without it.

Stay calm. Don't get drawn into negotiating it. The rules don't bend even when the prospect is sympathetic.

Operationalizing fast conflict checks

Three patterns I've seen work for solo and small-firm attorneys:

The same-day check. Block the first 15 minutes of every morning for conflict checks on inquiries from the prior 24 hours. Inquiries that come in at 9pm get checked by 9am. Inquiries that come in mid-day get checked when you next clear a calendar slot, or end-of-day. Either way, the prospect hears either "let's get on the call" or "we have a conflict — here are referrals" inside 24 hours.

The pre-call habit. Run the conflict check as part of intake-call prep, not as a separate ritual. When you confirm an intake call on the calendar, put a 5-minute prep block 30 minutes before. Use the prep to do the check + skim the inquiry email again.

The integrated system. Some matter-management tools (Clio Grow, Smokeball Intake) hook the conflict-check workflow directly into intake form submissions — adverse parties go into a structured field that gets cross-referenced automatically. Worth the setup time if you have more than 30 intakes a month.

The mechanism doesn't matter much. The cadence does. Conflict checks that take three days are how fast intake replies turn into lost matters. Get the check inside 24 hours and the funnel stops leaking at the spot most solos lose half their leads.