INTAKE · ANALYSIS
The conflict check belongs on the intake form, not in the consult
Most firms discover the opposing party’s name in the consultation, after the attorney has heard the facts. Ask for it on the form, and the check runs before the meeting. Here is why that one field changes the intake, and how to ask for it without scaring anyone off.
We are not attorneys and this is not legal advice. Running the check and clearing the conflict is the firm’s judgment under Rules 4-1.7 through 4-1.10; this piece is about when the information arrives.
The hour the firm cannot bill and cannot take back
A prospective client books a consultation. The attorney sits down, listens for forty minutes, and the other party’s name comes up: a current client, a former client on a related matter, the spouse of a client. The consult ends. The firm has spent an hour it cannot bill, and the attorney has heard facts from someone the firm cannot represent, which is its own problem under Rule 4-1.18.
None of that had to happen. The name was available the moment the person wrote in. Nobody asked.
What to capture, by practice area
- Personal injury: the at-fault driver or the property owner, and the insurance carrier if known.
- Family law: the other spouse or parent, by full name. In custody matters, any other adult involved in the child’s care.
- Criminal defense: the complaining witness or alleged victim if the caller knows, and any co-defendant.
- Immigration: the employer, the petitioner, or the sponsoring relative, and any prior attorney on the same matter.
- Everyone: who is writing, and who the matter is about. When a daughter fills out the form for her father, both names matter for the check.
A REQUIRED FIELD, NOT A NICE-TO-HAVE
The reply does not have to wait for the check
A common objection: "we cannot reply until we know there is no conflict." But a reply that says the firm received the message and offers a time does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not evaluate anything. It is a response, and it can go out in a minute. What can wait for the check is the consultation itself. That is the sequence LegalCRM.pro runs: reply now, capture the opposing party on the form, hold the booking behind a Conflict Check Pending stage that a person on your staff clears, then confirm the consult.
In Spanish too
The most common way this field disappears is translation. The English form asks for "the opposing party." The Spanish form, translated by someone who did not know why the field mattered, asks for "the other person" or drops it. Spanish-speaking prospective clients then skip the conflict check without anyone deciding they should. The Spanish form has to ask for "la parte contraria" and require it, the same as the English.
What the pipeline shows
A card in Conflict Check Pending with the opposing party on it, assigned to whoever runs checks, with a clock. When it clears, the card moves and the consultation confirms. When it does not, the card goes to Not A Fit and every sequence stops, so nobody sends a reminder to a person the firm has declined.
Questions we get asked about this
Will asking for the opposing party on the form scare people off?
Some firms worry about it. A one-line explanation next to the field, "so we can make sure we are free to represent you," is what most firms use, and it reads as care rather than suspicion. The field is required because the inquiries that skip it are the ones that matter.
Does LegalCRM.pro run the conflict check?
No. It captures the opposing party and holds the consultation in a Conflict Check Pending stage until a person at the firm clears it. The check runs in the firm's own records or case management software, and the decision is the attorney's.
Related
See the field, the stage, and the clock
A 30-minute demo on a build for your practice area, with a Spanish inquiry going through the conflict stage.