Comparison
ConflictCheck vs Clio
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.
Comparison
ConflictCheck vs Intapp: Firm Size Decides This One
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.
The short answer
Intapp sits in the enterprise risk category, where new business intake is a department, conflicts analysts review the hits, and general counsel signs off on waivers. Firms of that shape need that depth and we are not a substitute for it. A two lawyer firm has the same ethical duties and none of that staffing, so the useful product is one lawyer can run between calls without an administrator. That is the entire design goal of ConflictCheck. If your firm has a risk committee, this comparison is not really for you.
ConflictCheck and Intapp side by side
| What you are deciding | ConflictCheck | Intapp |
|---|---|---|
| Firm profile assumed | One or two lawyers, no intake staff, no risk committee. | Larger firms with formal new business intake and risk functions. |
| Who runs a check | The attorney on the call, during the call. | Typically staff and analysts inside a defined firm process. |
| Workflow assumed | One form, one search, one dated result, then a decision. | Structured multi step intake and approval routing across roles. |
| Onboarding shape | Self serve import from a spreadsheet, no implementation project. | An enterprise deployment with configuration to firm policy. |
| Rules coverage in practice | Focused on the everyday questions under Rules 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, and 1.18. | Built for the wider risk and compliance program of a large firm. |
| Administration burden | None beyond adding new matters, which the intake form does for you. | Assumes people whose job includes maintaining the system. |
| Cost model | Published flat tiers at $49, $119, and $249 per month, billed to the firm. | Enterprise commercial terms, which you would discuss with them directly. |
On the right is the kind of tool Intapp is and the job it is shaped around, rather than a list of what it includes at any given price. Both keep changing, so check the current shape of each one before you choose. ConflictCheck is published by MLJ, SASU and this page is written by Jimenez Julien.
Choose ConflictCheck when
- You are the intake department, the conflicts analyst, and the lawyer arguing the motion.
- You need to screen tonight, not after an implementation and a policy workshop.
- Your conflicts universe is a few thousand names, not a global client and matter database.
- You want a defensible dated record without hiring anyone to maintain a system.
Choose Intapp when
- Your firm has dedicated intake or risk staff who review hits before a matter is opened.
- You need conflicts tied into a wider compliance program with formal approval routing.
- You are part of a larger firm where enterprise procurement and policy control the choice.
Enterprise conflicts systems assume an intake department
In a large firm, a new matter passes through people before it becomes a matter. A partner submits the request, an intake team runs the search, an analyst reads the hits and drafts a summary, and someone with authority decides whether an ethical wall or a waiver is appropriate. Software for that world is built to move a request through those roles and to record every hand off.
That design is correct for the firm that has those roles. It is also the reason the same software is a poor fit for two lawyers sharing an office suite. There is no queue, no analyst, and no approver other than the person who took the call. Routing steps that add safety in a firm of four hundred simply add delay in a firm of two.
What a two lawyer firm actually needs from the same discipline
The duties do not scale down. A solo attorney owes the same loyalty under Rule 1.7, the same former client analysis under Rule 1.9, and the same care with prospective clients under Rule 1.18 as any large firm. What changes is who does the work and how much time exists to do it, which is usually the length of one phone call.
So the small firm version of the same discipline is compression. Ask for the conflict generating names in a fixed order so nothing is skipped. Search current clients, closed matters, and declined callers together rather than one at a time. Write the result down with a date automatically, because the lawyer who just finished the call is about to drive to a deposition and will not come back to document it.
When a small firm outgrows this comparison
If you bring on a third and fourth lawyer, hire a paralegal who handles intake, and begin taking laterals from other firms, the shape of your problem starts to change. Imputation under Rule 1.10 becomes a live question, screening procedures need to be written down and enforced, and someone has to own the process rather than everyone owning it loosely.
At that point a heavier system may be worth evaluating, and we would rather say so than pretend otherwise. What carries forward either way is the record. A firm that has been writing dated screening records since it had two lawyers arrives at that transition with a searchable history, which is exactly what any larger system will ask you to load first.
Questions people ask before they choose
Is ConflictCheck a lighter version of an enterprise conflicts platform?
Not exactly. It is a different product built for a different firm shape, with no approval routing, no analyst queue, and no configuration project. The duties it helps you meet are the same ones, handled by one lawyer in the time a call allows.
Can two lawyers screen each other's matters?
Yes. Both lawyers search the same shared history, and every record shows who ran the search. That matters when one of you takes a call while the other is in trial, since the screening record is firm wide rather than personal.
What if we hire a lateral attorney?
You add their prior client and adverse party names to the searchable history and rescreen your open matters against them. Rule 1.10 screening only works when you know which of their old matters overlap yours. States differ on what screening cures, so check your own jurisdiction before you rely on it.
Other comparisons on conflictcheckapp.com
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.
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.