Comparison
ConflictCheck vs MyCase
MyCase is an all in one system for running a small firm, while ConflictCheck is a single screening step that runs before a matter exists anywhere.
Comparison
ConflictCheck vs Clio: Which Fits a Two Lawyer Firm
Clio is a broad practice management platform for firms of many sizes, while ConflictCheck does one job at intake and keeps the dated record that job produces.
The short answer
Clio is a practice management platform, and conflicts screening sits inside a system that also carries billing, trust accounting, calendaring, and documents. If you want your whole firm in one place and you have the appetite to configure it, that is a sound purchase and ConflictCheck is not trying to replace it. We fit better when the specific thing failing is intake itself: names captured loosely, searches run from memory, declined callers who leave no record. Plenty of our customers run both and screen the matter in ConflictCheck before it is opened anywhere else.
ConflictCheck and Clio side by side
| What you are deciding | ConflictCheck | Clio |
|---|---|---|
| Core job | Clear a new matter against your full client history before the intake call ends. | Run the daily operations of a law firm across many workflows at once. |
| Firm profile assumed | One or two lawyers who take their own intake calls and open their own matters. | A wide range of firm sizes and practice types, from solo through mid sized. |
| Where a check begins | In the structured intake form, before a matter record exists. | Inside the contact and matter structures the platform is organized around. |
| Adverse parties and entities | Adverse parties, related entities, spouses, and insurers are separate fields and all get searched. | Depends on how your firm chooses to model contacts and custom fields. |
| Screening record | Every search writes a timestamped record of who ran it, what was searched, and what came back. | Follows the general notes, tasks, and audit conventions of the platform. |
| Time to first useful check | Import a client and matter list as a spreadsheet and screen the same afternoon. | Setup spans the whole firm workflow, so plan a broader configuration effort. |
| What it deliberately skips | No billing, no trust accounting, no document assembly, no client portal. | Scope is intentionally broad and reaches well past intake. |
| Price shape | Three flat monthly tiers: Solo Practice at $49, Small Firm at $119, Firm Plus at $249. | Published on their own site, which is where you should read the current terms. |
On the right is the kind of tool Clio is and the job it is shaped around, rather than a list of what it includes at any given price. What a product covers moves over time, so verify where it stands today. ConflictCheck is published by MLJ, SASU and this page is written by Jimenez Julien.
Choose ConflictCheck when
- You already run billing somewhere you like and only need the conflicts half solved properly.
- Your last three intake calls ended with you promising to check the file and call back.
- You want a screening record you could hand to a bar investigator without reconstructing anything.
- You are one or two lawyers and nobody here is going to administer a firm wide system.
Choose Clio when
- You want billing, trust accounting, calendaring, and documents from one vendor instead of a stack.
- Your firm is growing past two lawyers and staff need shared workflows across every matter.
- You value a large ecosystem of legal integrations and a long list of partner tools.
What a full practice management platform is for
A practice management system exists to hold the whole life of a matter: the engagement letter, the calendar dates, the time entries, the trust ledger, and the closing statement. Conflicts screening is one function among dozens, and it is usually built to fit the platform's contact model rather than the other way around. That is a reasonable design choice when the buyer is a firm with staff who maintain that contact model every day.
For a solo attorney, the tradeoff shows up in maintenance. The search is only as good as the contact records, and contact records in a busy general practice drift. Adverse parties get entered as free text in a note, an insurer never becomes a contact at all, and the LLC behind a landlord client is recorded once with a comma in a different place. None of that is a defect in the platform. It is what happens when the person maintaining the data is also the person in court on Thursday.
Why intake screening is a different shape of problem
Screening is a moment, not a module. The caller is on the line, they have named a spouse, a former business partner, and an insurance carrier, and you have perhaps ninety seconds before you either take the matter or start talking about fees. The question is not whether a search exists somewhere in your software. The question is whether you can run it now, against everything, including the callers you declined two years ago.
ConflictCheck is shaped around that ninety seconds. The intake form asks for the roles that actually generate conflicts under Rules 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, and 1.18, the search fires against current clients, closed matters, and prospective clients who never hired you, and the result is written down with a date before you move on. If the answer is a decline, the record of the decline is the thing that protects you later.
Running ConflictCheck alongside a practice management system
These are not mutually exclusive purchases and we do not pretend otherwise. A common pattern in a two lawyer firm is to screen every inquiry in ConflictCheck first, then open only the cleared matters in the practice management system, which keeps the platform free of records for people who were never clients and never should be treated as such.
That sequence has a second benefit at renewal time. When your malpractice carrier asks how new matters are screened, you can describe one process with one dated output, rather than describing a habit. Underwriters read process descriptions for a living, and a documented screening step is easier to explain than a well intentioned routine that lives in one lawyer's head.
Questions people ask before they choose
Can I use ConflictCheck if my firm already runs on a practice management system?
Yes, and many of our customers do exactly that. You import your client and matter list, screen every new inquiry in ConflictCheck, and open only the cleared matters in your main system. Nothing about the two overlapping causes a problem, because we do not touch billing or documents.
Does ConflictCheck replace my billing and trust accounting?
No, and it is not meant to. We handle intake screening and the dated record it produces, nothing else. If you need one vendor for the entire firm, a full practice management platform is the right shape of product for you.
What happens to callers I decline?
They stay in the searchable history as prospective clients with the date, the names they gave, and the fact that you declined. That record is what Rule 1.18 analysis depends on months later. Deleting declined callers is one of the most common ways a small firm loses a disqualification fight.
Other comparisons on conflictcheckapp.com
Comparison
ConflictCheck vs Intapp
Intapp is a risk and intake platform built for large firms with dedicated staff, while ConflictCheck is built for the lawyer who does the screening personally.
See this head to head on your own closed files
Reading one product against another narrows the field, but the honest test is the names already sitting in your file drawer. Send a spreadsheet of clients and adverse parties before the call and we will run a live intake against it together. If the other product suits your practice better, we would rather tell you now than have you find out during a motion to withdraw.