Prepare a Conflict Check and Open the Matter From Intake

Turn intake forms and emails into a complete, source-quoted list of names to screen, a conflict-search request, a sorted review of the hits, and a matter-opening checklist.

The Workflow

1. 1

   Set the context and load the intake materials

   Tell Claude who the prospective client is, what kind of matter it is, and what you know about the other side. Paste the intake form, the emails, and any documents the prospect sent, each in its own document tag. Do not tidy them first; the names you need are often in the details.

   PromptCopy

   I am preparing a conflict check for a prospective new matter. Context:
   - Prospective client: [NAME OR ENTITY]
   - Matter type: [e.g., commercial lease dispute, asset purchase, wrongful termination defense]
   - Our role: [e.g., counsel to the buyer, counsel to the defendant]
   - Other side, as known: [NAMES OR "unknown"]
   
   The intake materials are below.
   
   <document name="intake_form">
   [PASTE INTAKE FORM]
   </document>
   
   <document name="emails">
   [PASTE EMAILS FROM THE PROSPECT]
   </document>
   
   <document name="attachments">
   [PASTE ANY LETTERS, CONTRACTS, OR FILINGS THE PROSPECT SENT]
   </document>
   
   First, list each document you received with a one-line description and note anything that appears cut off or unreadable. Then ask me up to 5 questions about parties or relationships that are unclear. Do not analyze conflicts yet.

   What you get: An inventory of the materials and a short list of questions, for example whether a named company is a subsidiary of the client or whether a person mentioned is a witness or a party.

2. 2

   Extract every name to screen

   Have Claude build the party list. Cast a wide net: the client and its affiliates, adverse parties and theirs, officers and owners, insurers, opposing counsel, and key witnesses. Each entry should carry its source quote so you can check it.

   PromptCopy

   Using the intake materials and my answers, list every person and entity we should screen. Return a table with columns:
   
   Name | Role (client, client affiliate, adverse party, adverse affiliate, officer/owner, insurer, opposing counsel, witness, other) | Aliases, former names, alternate spellings, trade names | Relationship to the matter | Source (document name and a short exact quote)
   
   Rules:
   - Include parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates only if the materials mention them. Do not guess at corporate families.
   - Where the materials suggest a name variant (a former name, a d/b/a, a maiden name, an abbreviation), list it.
   - Add a separate list titled "Relationship unclear" for any person or entity whose role you cannot determine, with the quote and what we would need to know.
   - Do not omit a name because it seems unimportant.

   What you get: A source-quoted party table and an "unclear" list. Check each quote against the original, then add any related entities you know of that the materials do not mention.

3. 3

   Draft the conflict-search request

   Turn the table into a request for whoever runs conflicts, even if that is you. Group the names by role and include the questions that a database search alone will not answer, such as whether anyone at the firm has a personal or financial relationship with a party.

   PromptCopy

   Draft a conflict-search request memo based on the party table. Format:
   
   To: [CONFLICTS CONTACT OR "File"]
   From: [ATTORNEY]
   Re: New matter conflict search, [PROSPECTIVE CLIENT] / [MATTER DESCRIPTION]
   
   1. Matter summary (3 sentences, factual, no legal conclusions)
   2. Names to search, grouped by role, each with all variants on the same line
   3. Questions for circulation to firm personnel: prior representation of any listed party, personal or financial relationships with any listed party, and anything else our intake materials suggest
   4. Requested turnaround: [DATE]
   
   Format the names section as [FORMAT YOUR CONFLICTS SYSTEM ACCEPTS, e.g., one name per line, last name first for individuals]. Keep it to one page if possible.

   What you get: A one-page search request ready to send or to run yourself, with every variant included.

4. 4

   Sort the search results

   After the search runs, paste the results and the party table back in. Ask Claude to sort each hit and show its reasoning. This step organizes the review; the attorney decides what is and is not a conflict and whether any waiver is appropriate.

   PromptCopy

   Below are the conflict-search results for this matter and our party table. We represent [PROSPECTIVE CLIENT] as [ROLE].
   
   <document name="search_results">
   [PASTE SEARCH RESULTS]
   </document>
   
   <document name="party_table">
   [PASTE THE PARTY TABLE]
   </document>
   
   Sort every hit into one of three groups: (A) likely irrelevant (for example, a name match with a clearly different person or entity), (B) needs review, (C) potential conflict involving a current client or a former client under [APPLICABLE RULE]. For each hit give: the name, the matching record quoted from the results, the group, and two or three sentences of reasoning. Where you cannot tell whether a prior matter is substantially related or whether a client is current or former, put it in group B and say what information would resolve it. Do not state that any hit is cleared; I will make those decisions.

   What you get: A sorted hit list with reasoning. Group B and C items go to the responsible attorney with the underlying matter records.

5. 5

   Build the matter-opening checklist

   Once the attorney has cleared conflicts, have Claude assemble the opening checklist from the intake: the engagement letter, any waivers the attorney decided are needed, deadlines mentioned in the intake, file set-up, and billing arrangements. Then hand off to the engagement-letter workflow.

   PromptCopy

   The responsible attorney has completed the conflict review: [SUMMARY OF DECISION, e.g., "cleared; no waivers needed" or "cleared subject to a waiver from [PARTY]"]. Using the intake materials, draft a matter-opening checklist with these sections:
   
   1. Engagement: engagement letter, scope, fee arrangement [TO CONFIRM], any waiver letters the attorney has decided on
   2. Deadlines from intake: every date or time limit mentioned, each with its source quote, marked VERIFY
   3. File set-up: matter name and number [PLACEHOLDER], parties list, document folders, litigation hold or preservation notice if the matter calls for one [ATTORNEY TO DECIDE]
   4. Billing: rate or fee type, retainer or deposit, billing contact, client billing guidelines if any
   5. Open items: anything still missing from intake
   
   Use checkboxes. Do not calculate any deadline; quote what the intake says and leave the calculation to me.

   What you get: A checkbox list you can work through, with intake deadlines quoted and flagged for verification, ready to feed into the Client Intake to Engagement Letter workflow.

Example Output

Illustrative example — names, facts, and figures are fictional.

PARTY TABLE (excerpt, fictional matter)
Prospective client: Larkspur Coffee Roasters, Inc. | Matter: dispute with former distributor

Name | Role | Variants | Source
Larkspur Coffee Roasters, Inc. | Client | "Larkspur Roasting"; d/b/a "Larkspur Coffee Co." | Intake form: "we also trade as Larkspur Coffee Co."
Peak & Prairie Distribution LLC | Adverse party | "P&P Distribution" | Email 3/14: "P&P stopped paying in January"
Harlan Voss | Adverse officer/owner | none found | Attachment 1: "Harlan Voss, Managing Member"
Granite Mutual Insurance Co. | Insurer (client) | none found | Intake form: "our policy is with Granite Mutual"
Deirdre Okafor | Witness | "D. Okafor" | Email 3/16: "Deirdre in our warehouse handled every shipment"

Relationship unclear
- "Summit Beverage Group": Email 3/14 says "P&P's parent, I think." Need: confirm whether Summit owns P&P.
- "Marisol Pike": Attachment 2 cc line only. Need: her role and employer.

HIT REVIEW (excerpt)
Group A, likely irrelevant: "Harlan Voss" matched "Harlan Voss Jr." in a 2019 estate matter; different middle initial and city in the record. Attorney to confirm.
Group B, needs review: "Summit Beverage Group" matched a closed 2022 lease review for Summit. Unclear whether Summit owns the adverse party and whether the prior matter is related. Need the ownership facts and the 2022 file.
Group C, potential conflict: none identified in these results.

DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW. No hit has been cleared; all determinations are for the responsible attorney.

Tips

• •Ask for name variants every time. Former names, d/b/a names, and abbreviations are where conflict searches most often miss.
• •Keep the source quote column. It lets the attorney check each name in seconds and shows which names came from the client's own account rather than a document.
• •Run Step 2 again whenever new documents arrive during intake. New parties often surface in the second or third email.
• •Do not ask Claude whether a conflict exists in the abstract. Give it the specific search record and ask it to sort and explain, so the reasoning is tied to facts you can check.
• •Before conflicts clear, collect only the information you need to run the check. Duties to prospective clients (Model Rule 1.18 or your [JURISDICTION]'s version) can attach to what you learn in a consult, so avoid taking detailed facts until the search is back.
• •Save the party table with the file. It becomes the starting list for later conflict checks when new parties join the matter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Prompts used in this workflow

Related Reading

• AI-Powered Client Intake for Law Firms
• Turn a New Client Intake Into a Matter Summary + Engagement Letter
• Claude for Solo Practice