Firm operations

The conflict check is the reason an enquiry cannot be answered yet

Every other industry can answer a new enquiry on the spot. A law firm cannot: until the conflict check is done it does not know whether it is free to act, and in some matters it does not even know whether it may safely hear the details. The pressure to reply quickly runs directly against that.

Hearing too much, too early, is the risk

A conflict is not only "we act for the other side". It can be a former client, a related company, a witness, or a matter the firm declined last year. The danger at first contact is not giving bad advice - it is receiving confidential information from someone the firm may turn out to be unable to act for, which can taint the existing engagement as well as the new one.

What is safe to collect, and it is enough to be useful

Names of the parties, the nature of the matter in one line, and how to make contact. That is what a conflict check needs. It is deliberately not the facts, not the documents, and not the history - and a first-contact form that asks "tell us about your case" is collecting exactly the thing that should wait.

Say why the answer is not immediate

A caller who is told "we will come back to you" with no reason hears indifference and calls the next firm. The same caller told that a conflict check must be completed before the firm can discuss the matter, and that it takes a stated length of time, hears professionalism. The delay is identical; only the explanation differs, and it is the explanation that decides whether they wait.

Where the assistant genuinely helps

Taking the party names and the one-line nature of the matter at eleven at night, stating the process and the timescale honestly, declining to discuss the substance, and putting a timestamped record in front of whoever runs the check. That is a faster start to the clock with none of the risk - and it is strictly safer than a human taking a late-evening call and being drawn into detail.

Frequently asked questions

What should a firm publish about first contact?
That a conflict check comes before any discussion of the matter, what is needed to run it, roughly how long it takes, and what happens next in either outcome. Four facts that make an unavoidable delay read as diligence instead of indifference.
Can an assistant discuss the matter before the check is done?
It must not, and the design should make that a rule rather than a preference. Receiving confidential detail from someone the firm may be unable to act for is the risk, and it can affect an existing engagement as well as the new one.
What may safely be collected at first contact?
Party names, a one-line description of the nature of the matter, and contact details. Not the facts, not documents, not history. A form that invites "tell us about your case" is collecting precisely what should wait.
Does explaining the delay really change anything?
The delay is the same either way; what changes is whether the enquirer waits through it. We will not quote a conversion figure - it would be from another firm's intake. Measure how many enquiries go quiet between first contact and the check for a month either side of publishing the explanation.
Which languages can an enquiry arrive in?
Hebrew with full right-to-left layout, English and Russian, detected from what the enquirer writes. Party names are the one field where transliteration through a second language genuinely matters: a name spelled differently is a conflict the check will not find.

Get in touch

Leave your details and we will reply. You do not need a sales call to get an answer.