Conflict of interest checker

Screening tool only. This checker flags issues worth investigating and doesn't replace a formal conflicts check against your firm's actual client database, which every firm should maintain and search before accepting new representation. See our full disclaimer.

Conflict screening questionnaire

Is the prospective client directly adverse to anyone your firm currently represents, in this matter or any other?

Is the prospective client, or any party involved, a former client of your firm?

Could your responsibilities to another current client, a former client, or a third person materially limit how you represent this new client?

Do you or anyone in your firm have a personal, financial, or business interest that could affect your independent judgment on this matter?

Would this engagement involve representing multiple parties jointly, such as both sides of a transaction or multiple co-defendants?

Conflict screening result

Need help evaluating a flagged conflict?

A legal ethics consultant can help you assess whether a conflict is waivable, draft an informed consent letter, or evaluate whether an ethical screen would be appropriate.

What counts as a concurrent conflict of interest under Rule 1.7?

A concurrent conflict exists in 2 situations under ABA Model Rule 1.7: when representing one client would be directly adverse to another current client, or when there's a significant risk that representing one or more clients would be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third person, or the lawyer's own personal interest. Nearly all US jurisdictions have adopted some version of this framework, though specific wording and interpretation can vary by state.

A conflict doesn't automatically bar representation. Under paragraph (b) of the rule, a lawyer may proceed if they reasonably believe they can provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client, the representation isn't prohibited by law, it doesn't involve asserting a claim by one client against another client in the same litigation, and each affected client gives informed consent confirmed in writing. Once a potential conflict is flagged, formalize the terms of your engagement, including any waiver, using our legal fee comparison tool to help set clear fee terms alongside the waiver discussion, and track the matter going forward with our legal time tracker.

What's the difference between a waivable and a non-waivable conflict?

Most concurrent conflicts are waivable if the paragraph (b) conditions are met and clients give informed written consent. Some conflicts are considered non-waivable regardless of consent, most notably representing directly opposing parties in the same litigation before the same tribunal, since no amount of disclosure fixes that fundamental adversity. When in doubt about whether a specific conflict is waivable, that's exactly the kind of judgment call worth getting a second opinion on before proceeding.

Does a conflict with one attorney at a firm get imputed to the whole firm?

Generally yes, under Rule 1.10, one lawyer's conflict is imputed to every lawyer in the same firm, meaning the whole firm is typically disqualified from the matter unless the conflict is personal to the individual lawyer and doesn't present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation by others in the firm. Some jurisdictions allow an ethical screen to isolate the conflicted lawyer in certain circumstances, most commonly for lawyers who recently moved firms, but the rules governing when screening is permitted vary significantly by state.

How often should conflict checks actually be run?

Conflicts should be checked before accepting any new client or matter, and again whenever new parties are added to an existing matter, since a conflict that didn't exist at intake can arise later as a case develops. Firms handling any meaningful volume of matters typically maintain a searchable client and matter database specifically so this check can be run quickly and consistently rather than relying on memory.

Frequently asked questions about conflicts of interest

Yes, advance waivers are permitted, but their effectiveness depends heavily on how specific and well explained the waiver is. A narrow waiver describing a specific type of foreseeable future conflict is more likely to hold up than a broad, open-ended waiver, since the client needs to reasonably understand the material risks being waived for consent to be considered informed.

The lawyer generally must address it immediately, which may mean seeking informed consent if the conflict is waivable, or withdrawing from representing one or both clients if it isn't. Continuing representation with a known, unaddressed conflict is itself a separate ethics violation on top of the underlying conflict.

It can, if the representation is directly adverse, even in a completely unrelated matter. Representing client A in a real estate deal while suing client A on behalf of client B in an unrelated car accident case is still generally treated as a direct adversity conflict, since it affects the duty of loyalty owed to client A regardless of subject matter overlap.

Compliance with Rule 1.7 itself is a mandatory ethics obligation in every US jurisdiction, enforceable through bar discipline. The specific practice of running a formal conflicts check against a client database isn't separately mandated by rule in most places, but it's the practical mechanism nearly every firm uses to actually comply with the underlying rule.

In some jurisdictions and circumstances, yes, particularly for lateral hires bringing conflicts from a former firm. A proper screen typically requires timely implementation, written notice to affected clients, and genuine information barriers, not just a formal memo. Rules on when screening is permitted and what it requires vary meaningfully by state, so this shouldn't be assumed without checking local rules.