Searching the client name and stopping there
Solo attorneys and small firms often run a quick name search for the potential client, then move on. This step misses many potential conflicts. Surnames can repeat within a region, and business names may sound alike but be legally distinct. A simple search for "Smith" or "Acme" may pull up dozens of results or none, depending on how data is entered.
The most common mistake is to check for the current client's name only, leaving out close relatives, business partners, officers, or affiliated companies. If you represent a key player in a family business dispute, you need to consider spouses, adult children, and the entities they control. A narrow search that ignores these relationships can let conflicts slide past, exposing you to a motion to disqualify later.
When it comes to organizations, trade names and abbreviations further complicate searches. "ABC Inc." may also operate as "ABC Consulting" or "The ABC Group." If your system can't search for related names or doesn't prompt you to enter aliases, these connections get missed. A thorough check always casts a wider net than the intake form's first line.
Keep reading: The Substantial Relationship Test in a Motion to Disqualify
Never logging matters you declined or referred out
It's tempting to skip intake steps for prospects who never become clients. Many solos jot a note on a legal pad or just remember that they turned someone down. But the ethics rules do not care whether you got a retainer or signed an engagement letter. Even a brief phone call or email exchange can form the basis for a conflict under the rules that govern attorney conduct.
Failing to log declined or referred matters means you lack a record for future checks. If that person or company comes back years later, you may not recall the brief contact, but the rules still apply. Worse, if a party you once declined later ends up on the other side of a matter, you may not realize the connection until it's too late. Logging every inquiry, even for matters you don't accept, gives you the chance to catch these issues before they become a problem.
Some attorneys skip record-keeping for free consultations, thinking that no fee means no duty. But the ethical duty attaches to the information received, not the payment. Intake logs should include every significant contact: declined, accepted, or referred out. This is the only way to build a reliable database for future conflict checks.
Treating a corporate client as one name instead of a family of entities
Corporate clients can be deceptively simple at intake. The business card says "XYZ Corp.," but the real picture may involve a parent company, several subsidiaries, and a list of related entities. Treating the corporate client as one name means missing conflicts with any branch or affiliate.
Subsidiaries, parents, and affiliates
Many businesses operate through multiple legal entities for tax or liability reasons. A local retailer may be a subsidiary of a national chain, or a real estate holding company might control a dozen LLCs. If your intake form records only the immediate party, you miss connections to the larger network. Conflicts can arise from any arm of the organization, not just the entity in front of you today.
Officers, directors, and key personnel
Corporate clients are run by people, and those individuals can also create conflicts. An officer or director who sits on several boards may bring in matters for various companies. If you fail to log these names along with the entity, your conflict search may miss a case involving a company where your past client serves in a leadership role. Every intake for a business client should include a structured way to record these relationships.
Keep reading: How Legal Malpractice Premiums Are Rated for Solo Attorneys
Missing the conflict that arrives with a new party mid case
Cases rarely stay static. New parties can be added by amendment, counterclaim, or intervention. If you only run a conflict check at intake, you risk missing serious issues that crop up when the case changes shape. A new defendant or third-party witness may have been a client or contact years before, but without a fresh check, this goes unnoticed.
Many solos think "I did the conflict check already" and move on. In reality, every significant change in the roster of parties should trigger a new search. This is especially true in business disputes or probate matters, where ownership and interests can shift quickly. A mid-case conflict can be harder to fix, since the firm is already in the record and may have learned confidential information.
The safest process is to re-run the check every time a new party is named or appears. This keeps the record clear and your ethical duties intact. If your system doesn't prompt you to check again, it's easy to be caught off guard by a late-arriving conflict.
Relying on memory in a two lawyer office
Small firms often trust that they'll remember past clients and matters. After all, with only two attorneys, each is likely to recall big cases. But as the years pile up, even the sharpest memory fades, and the details blur. Staff turnover, retirement, or even a short leave can break the chain of recollection.
Memory is especially unreliable for short-lived matters, one-off consults, or cases that never resulted in a file. If you rely on a partner's recollection, you risk missing connections to matters they handled before you joined the firm or while you were out sick. Conversations over lunch do not substitute for a written or digital record.
Even with a small roster, the better practice is to keep a structured log that both attorneys can access and update. This makes conflict checks objective, not a memory test. The most embarrassing disqualifications happen when a forgotten consult with a minor player pops up years later, and your only defense is "I don't remember that."
See how ConflictCheck handles this for legal services
Confusing a business conflict with an ethical one
Clients often assume that "conflict of interest" means you cannot represent someone who is adverse to a former or existing client. In practice, ethics rules are more nuanced. Not all business conflicts are ethical conflicts, and vice versa.
Business as opposed to legal conflicts
It is common for solos to worry about representing competitors or parties in the same industry. But the ethical conflict rules focus on duties to clients, not market relationships. Representing two vendors in the same supply chain is not an ethical conflict unless you have confidential information from one that is relevant to the other. Conversely, even if two clients are not competitors, you may still face a conflict if their interests are directly adverse in a matter you are handling.
When waivers and disclosures are needed
Some conflicts can be waived with informed written consent, while others are non-waivable. A business conflict, such as risk of lost referrals or strained relationships, is not governed by the same rules. It's critical not to let business interests cloud your reading of the ethics rules. Always distinguish between what is a legal duty and what is a business judgment.
Proper intake and conflict checking should prompt you to analyze the nature of the conflict, not just the names involved. If your process only looks for obvious market competitors, you can miss the real ethical issue lurking in the background.
Running the check after the engagement letter goes out
The engagement letter is often the first formal document a new client receives. But if you wait until after sending it to run a conflict check, you risk having to send an embarrassing follow-up. At best, the client is annoyed. At worst, you are forced to withdraw before the ink dries, or worse, after substantive work has begun.
Some attorneys delay the check until payment is received, or until a more formal intake is done. This is risky. The ethical duty to check for conflicts arises as soon as you start to receive confidential information, which is often before any document is signed. Running the check after sending the letter puts you in a tough position if a conflict surfaces.
The best practice is to run a structured conflict search before any engagement documents go out. This protects both you and the client from wasted time and awkward conversations. A disciplined workflow ensures that no work begins until the check is cleared.
Keeping no dated record that the search ever happened
The final and most damaging mistake is failing to keep a dated record of your conflict check. Without proof that a search was done, you have no defense if challenged later. Judges and disciplinary authorities do not take "I always check" as proof. They want to see a record that shows who was searched, when, and what the results were.
Many solos rely on handwritten notes, informal emails, or even just their recollection. But these are often misplaced or incomplete. In a disqualification motion or ethics hearing, you need to demonstrate not just that you thought about conflicts, but that you actively checked and logged the process. The dated record is your evidence that you complied with your ethical duties.
This is especially important in small firms, where informal practices can go unchallenged for years. When the challenge does come, it is usually at the worst possible moment: after significant work has been done, or when the case is in the public eye. A dated, structured record closes the loop and protects your practice.
Modern, structured intake tools with automatic conflict searching and time-stamped screening records can help solo and small firm attorneys avoid all of these mistakes. A process that prompts for all parties, tracks declined matters, and generates a dated record gives you the proof you need, and keeps your firm out of trouble when conflict issues arise.
