# How to Handle Conflict Checks During Client Intake October 23, 2026 ![Brandon Burke](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/30dadeab87373446b5e229ce9a83736f8fce5e9b69d72593531ba7a325e0f1be?s=24&d=mm&r=g) Brandon Burke [General](https://casepulse.com/category/general/) A new caller wants help after a car crash. Before anyone runs a single name, the intake specialist has heard everything. The caller has described the injuries, the medical bills, an offer from the insurer, and what they said at the scene. Then the conflict check comes back with a hit. The person the caller wants to sue is a current client of the firm. The firm now holds information from someone it can’t represent. That information may also put the firm’s existing client relationship at risk. The fix for conflict checks during client intake is a matter of order. Ask who before what. Collect names, run the check, and only then collect the story. [ABA Model Rule 1.18](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_18_duties_of_prospective_client/) protects what a prospective client tells your firm, even if the firm never takes the case. ## Why the order of intake questions matters Most firms think of the conflict check as an administrative step. Rule 1.18 makes it an ethics step too. Duties to a prospective client start before any engagement letter is signed. Part of Rule 1.18 What it says What it means at intake (a) Who is a prospective client A person who consults with a lawyer about possibly forming a client-lawyer relationship on a matter A first call or a web form submission can create duties before anyone signs (b) Confidentiality Information learned from a prospective client can’t be used or revealed “except as Rule 1.9 would permit” Declining the case doesn’t free the firm to use what it heard (c) Disqualification A lawyer who received information “that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter” can’t represent a materially adverse client in the same or a substantially related matter. The bar extends to the whole firm, except as (d) allows One long intake call can conflict out the firm, not just the person who took the call (d) Ways to still proceed Informed consent from both the affected client and the prospective client, confirmed in writing. Or screening the lawyer who heard the information, plus prompt written notice The screening route depends on whether the lawyer limited what was asked at intake That last row is the one intake teams control. Screening is only available if the lawyer who received the information “took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client.” In other words, a firm that collected the whole story up front may lose its best way out of the conflict. What counts as significantly harmful? [ABA Formal Opinion 492](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-492.pdf) collects examples that courts and ethics committees have treated that way. They include a prospect’s settlement position, personal accounts of what happened, sensitive personal and financial information, and litigation strategy. That is the kind of information callers often share early. States adopt their own versions of Rule 1.18, and the wording and comments vary. Check your state’s version before you set your intake policy. This is general information, not legal advice. ## What to collect before the conflict check, and what to hold A conflict check needs names, not the story. Split your intake questions into two groups and hold the second group until conflicts clear. Information When to collect it Why Prospect’s full name and any other names used Before the check Needed to search your records Opposing parties, and their employers or insurers if known Before the check These are the names most likely to produce a hit Other people involved, such as passengers or co-workers Before the check Related parties can create conflicts too Matter type in a phrase (“car accident,” “denied disability claim”) Before the check Tells the firm whether the matter fits its practice Date of the incident Before the check Flags urgency without asking for details What happened, in detail After conflicts clear The core of what Rule 1.18 protects Injuries and medical history After conflicts clear Sensitive personal information Settlement offers or demands After conflicts clear Settlement position is a named example of harmful information Statements the prospect gave, and documents they hold After conflicts clear Can reveal strategy and weak points Financial details After conflicts clear Sensitive financial information For the search itself, including which records to check and how to document results, see [our full guide to conflict checks](https://casepulse.com/conflict-checks-for-law-firms/). ## A sequence for conflict checks during client intake [ABA Formal Opinion 510](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-510.pdf) addresses what reasonable measures can look like. They include telling prospects the firm hasn’t agreed to take the matter, asking them to limit what they share, and keeping questions to what the firm needs to decide. Here is an intake order built on that idea. 1. **Open with the caution.** Tell the caller the firm hasn’t agreed to take the matter yet. Ask them not to share details until the firm completes a check. 2. **Collect names.** Get the prospect’s name, any other names used, the opposing parties, and anyone else involved. 3. **Get a one-line description and the key date.** Enough to know the matter type and whether it fits your practice. 4. **Run the conflict check.** Search in your case management system or through your firm’s conflicts process before asking anything else. 5. **If the check is clear, continue the screening interview.** Clearing conflicts doesn’t end the limit. Keep questions to what the firm needs to decide whether to take the matter, such as fit, competence, and fees. 6. **If the check returns a hit, stop and route it to an attorney.** The intake specialist shouldn’t ask more questions or explain the conflict. 7. **Decide and document.** Send an engagement letter if the firm takes the case. Send a short written declination if it doesn’t. 8. **Collect the full story after the client signs.** Detailed facts, records, and documents belong here. Step 4 is the one that slips when the phones are busy. Building it into your [client intake process](https://casepulse.com/client-intake-process/) as a hard stop, not a suggestion, keeps it from being skipped. ## What to say when a caller starts telling the whole story Callers want to explain what happened. That is natural, and a well-meaning intake specialist doesn’t want to seem cold. A short script helps staff hold the line politely. Adapt this to your firm and your practice area. **At the start of the call:** *“Thanks for calling. Before we get into what happened, I need to run a quick check to make sure our firm is able to help. We haven’t agreed to take your case yet, so please don’t share details about the incident for now. I just need a few names to start.”* **When the caller keeps going:** *“That sounds important, and an attorney will want to hear all of it. Let me pause you there so we can finish our check first. Can you tell me the name of the other driver?”* **When the check clears:** *“Thank you for waiting. We’re able to talk with you about your case. \[Name\] will walk you through the next questions.”* **When the check returns a hit:** *“Thank you for your patience. An attorney from our firm will follow up with you directly about next steps.”* The last line matters. Intake staff shouldn’t explain why the firm can’t help, and shouldn’t comment on the strength of the case. Our guide to the [law firm intake specialist role](https://casepulse.com/intake-specialist-law-firm/) covers training the people who take these calls. ## Your website intake form counts too A web form can create a prospective client just as a phone call can. Comment \[2\] to Rule 1.18 says a consultation is likely when a lawyer “specifically requests or invites the submission of information about a potential representation without clear and reasonably understandable warnings and cautionary statements that limit the lawyer’s obligations, and a person provides information in response.” A form with a large “Tell us what happened” box and no warning invites exactly that. Opinion 492 says lawyers “should warn prospective clients against disclosing detailed information.” Opinion 510 adds what that warning should say. The lawyer hasn’t agreed to take the matter yet, and the prospect should share only what is needed. The same principle applies to every intake channel: > The lawyer “should limit the initial consultation to only such information as reasonably appears necessary for that purpose.” *[ABA Model Rule 1.18, comment \[4\]](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_18_duties_of_prospective_client/comment_on_rule_1_18_duties_of_prospective_client/)* In practice, that means a few changes to your form: - **Ask for names first.** The first step collects the prospect’s name, contact details, opposing parties, and matter type. - **Drop the open narrative box from the first step.** Move detailed questions to a later form, sent after conflicts clear and the client signs. - **Put a plain caution above the submit button.** For example: “Submitting this form does not make you our client. We have not agreed to represent you. Please do not include details about your situation until we contact you.” Comment \[5\] also lets a lawyer condition a consultation on the person’s informed consent “that no information disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the lawyer from representing a different client in the matter.” Some firms build that consent into their intake terms. Talk to your ethics counsel before relying on it. For more on structuring the form itself, see our guide to the [law firm client intake form](https://casepulse.com/law-firm-client-intake-form/). ## When the conflict check comes back with a hit A hit doesn’t always mean the firm is stuck. If intake stopped at names, the firm likely heard little that could be significantly harmful. Either way, an attorney should review the hit. Usually the firm declines the prospect. The separate question is whether the firm can keep or take on the client on the other side. Rule 1.18(d) gives two ways to do that: screening or informed consent. ### Decline the matter Comment \[4\] says that when the information shows a conflict of interest or another reason not to take the case, “the lawyer should so inform the prospective client or decline the representation.” Keep the declination short and general. Explaining the conflict could reveal information about another client. Don’t comment on the merits of the prospect’s case. Do suggest they speak with another lawyer promptly, since deadlines may apply to their claim. Put the declination in writing and keep a copy. Whatever the prospect shared stays confidential after the firm declines. Our guide to [lawyer client confidentiality](https://casepulse.com/lawyer-client-confidentiality/) covers those duties in more depth. ### Screen the lawyer who heard the information If the firm wants to represent the other side, Rule 1.18(d)(2) allows it in some cases. The lawyer who received the information must have taken reasonable measures to limit it. That lawyer must be timely screened from the matter and get no part of the fee. The prospective client must also get prompt written notice. The comments to the rule say the notice should generally describe the subject matter of the consultation and the screening procedures used. It should go out as soon as practicable once the need for screening becomes apparent. ### Get informed consent The firm can also keep or take on the adverse client if both that client and the prospective client give informed consent, confirmed in writing. This path depends on both parties agreeing, so it isn’t always available. For conflicts with current and former clients, including conflict waivers, see [our full guide to conflict checks](https://casepulse.com/conflict-checks-for-law-firms/). ## Where the detailed questions go once the client signs Once conflicts clear and the client signs the [engagement letter](https://casepulse.com/letters-of-engagement/), the firm needs the full story fast. That’s the moment intake has been holding back for. Our Smart Client Forms collect the detailed facts at that stage, including accident details, medical records, and client information. Your team reviews and validates each submission before it enters your case management system. We work on top of the CMS your firm already uses, including [Neos](https://casepulse.com/integrations/neos/), [Needles](https://casepulse.com/integrations/needles/), [LawBase](https://casepulse.com/integrations/lawbase/), [Litify](https://casepulse.com/integrations/litify/), and Salesforce. We don’t run the conflict check itself. That still happens in your CMS or your firm’s conflicts process, before the detailed forms go out. That split matches the intake order above. Names and the conflict check come first. The story comes after the client signs, through forms your team controls. See the full [feature list](https://casepulse.com/features/) for details. Want intake that collects names first and the full story only after the client signs? [Get started](https://casepulse.com/get-started/) to see how CasePulse works with your case management system. #### Ready to see what the portal can do for your team? [Book a demo](https://calendly.com/casepulse/demo)