Legal Services Offshore research · Intake Controls
Conflict screening quality: a sampling method for intake packets
A bounded method for testing whether conflict-check intake packets contain the parties, sources, and search evidence a lawyer needs before clearing a matter.
Research context
This research brief is designed for legal operations planning. Use the findings to ask better workflow questions, then test any proposed process against the firm’s jurisdiction, professional duties, systems, and client commitments.
The question and the boundary
Conflict screening is a lawyer function supported by an intake record. The quality question is administrative: does the packet contain the parties, aliases, sources, searches, and results that the reviewer needs to make a determination? This method measures packet completeness and reproducibility. It does not decide whether a conflict exists, whether it is waivable, or whether the firm may act.
Define the observation unit
The unit is one conflict-check packet for one prospective matter, from intake receipt through recorded determination. Freeze the period, the matter types, the intake channels, and the system of record before sampling. Exclude reopened packets unless the reopening created a new search requirement, and record the exclusion count.
Build the field standard
A complete packet records the prospective client, adverse parties, affiliates and former names where supplied, the source for each name, the searches run with the date and query, the results, the reviewer, and the determination. The standard should be written before the sample so the review does not drift toward personal preference.
Sample for coverage, not convenience
Use consecutive packets where possible and stratify by matter type and intake channel. Include packets with a possible match, a name change, a former client, and a tight deadline. These adverse cases are where the packet either supports a decision or leaves the reviewer to reconstruct the record.
Review independently
Two reviewers score the same sample against the field standard and preserve first-pass disagreement. A third reviewer adjudicates with the packet in front of them. Record missing fields, unverifiable searches, unresolved name variants, and determinations recorded without the underlying result.
Report the result honestly
Report the eligible count, the sample, the missing-field rate, the reproducibility rate, and the exceptions. A high completeness score on a small sample of easy packets is not evidence of a strong control. State the limits and the next review date.
Sources and method
Open each source to confirm its scope, publication date, and applicability before relying on it for a legal workflow decision.