How to automate client intake and conflict checks

Software can handle every step of intake that is capture, lookup or paperwork, and none of the steps that are judgment. In a small firm that means the inquiry arrives in one place, the relevant facts are pulled out, the conflict search runs, and a draft matter and engagement letter wait for approval.

The time goes into the gaps between those steps today: retyping a web form into the practice management system, searching contacts by hand under three spellings, chasing a missing opposing party name, then retyping everything again into the engagement letter. Those gaps are where automation pays. The decisions in between, whether to take the case, whether a hit is a real conflict, whether consent is possible, stay with a lawyer.

A safe workflow runs in five stages: capture, extraction, conflict search as a proposal, attorney sign-off, then matter opening and engagement letter. Each stage writes to a log so the firm can later show what was searched, what was found and who decided.

The key design choice is the gate after the conflict search. If the search finds nothing, the attorney still confirms, because a clean search only means your records had no match, not that no conflict exists. If it finds a possible match, the workflow stops and the matter is not created until an attorney has reviewed the hit and recorded a decision. A possible conflict never opens a matter automatically.

The same data then flows forward. The engagement letter, the first tasks and the calendar entries are generated from fields that were already checked, which removes the second and third round of retyping.

The rules require that a lawyer not take on a representation involving a conflict unless an exception applies, and the comments expect firms to have reasonable procedures to spot one. The rules cited here are the ABA Model Rules; your state's version may be worded differently, so check the one that binds you.

Comment [3] to Rule 1.7 says a lawyer should adopt reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, to determine the persons and issues involved, in both litigation and non-litigation matters. The same comment adds that ignorance caused by a failure to institute such procedures will not excuse a violation. An automated search is one such procedure. It does not replace the judgment the rules ask for, such as whether a lawyer reasonably believes competent and diligent representation is still possible under Rule 1.7(b).

An intake form should ask only for what the firm needs to decide whether to take the matter, because information from a prospective client can disqualify the lawyer and the firm later. Model Rule 1.18 applies even when no client relationship follows.

Under Rule 1.18(c), a lawyer who received information that could be significantly harmful to the prospective client may not act against that person in the same or a substantially related matter, and the bar extends to the firm. Rule 1.18(d)(2) avoids that imputation only if the lawyer took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary, is timely screened and gets no part of the fee, and the prospective client receives prompt written notice.

Web forms need particular care. Comment [2] says a consultation is likely to have occurred when a lawyer, including through advertising, specifically invites information about a potential representation without clear and reasonably understandable warnings that limit the lawyer's obligations. Comment [4] advises limiting the initial consultation to information that reasonably appears necessary.

ABA Formal Opinion 510 (March 2024) spells out what reasonable measures look like. According to the ABA's announcement, a lawyer should obtain only the information reasonably necessary to decide whether the engagement is permitted under the rules and whether the lawyer is willing to accept it, and could warn the prospective client to provide only the information requested. For a form, that means a visible warning, parties and matter type first, and detailed facts only after the conflict check is cleared.

In England and Wales, paragraph 6.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors says you do not act where there is a conflict of interest or a significant risk of one, subject to two exceptions. The first is a substantially common interest; the second is clients competing for the same objective, with written informed consent, safeguards for confidential information and the solicitor satisfied it is reasonable to act.

Paragraph 6.1 separately bars acting where there is an own interest conflict or a significant risk of it, with no exceptions. Paragraph 6.3 requires keeping the affairs of current and former clients confidential. For intake, that means the same search design as in the US, with two additions: the record of whether an exception was considered, and the consent evidence where it was relied on.

Paragraph 3.5 keeps the supervising solicitor accountable for work carried out through others. An intake system is supervised like staff: documented, logged and reviewed. None of this is legal advice for a specific matter.

A conflict search should produce a proposal because matching names is not the same as finding a conflict. The search can miss a party spelled differently, and it can flag a namesake who has nothing to do with the matter.

Both errors need a person. A missed match is reduced by searching variants, company names and related persons, but never eliminated. A false match needs someone who knows the matter to say “different person”. Whether a real match is a conflict, and whether it can be cured by consent, is a legal judgment under Rules 1.7 to 1.10 or paragraph 6.2 of the SRA Code.

When is the answer “do not automate”? If your contact records are incomplete, for example adverse parties were never entered on old matters, an automated search gives a false sense of coverage. Clean the data first, or treat the search as a supplement to the manual check until the records are complete.

Start with capture and the conflict search, because they touch every new matter and depend least on the rest of your setup. Engagement letters and matter templates come second, once the fields feeding them are reliable.

Check three things first: whether your practice management system exposes contacts and matters through an API or only through exports, whether adverse and related parties are stored as searchable records, and who signs off today. Elevate Consulting builds this inside the systems you already use, with the attorney sign-off built in. A two-week process check tells you whether it pays off for your volume, including when the answer is no.