Why the check starts on the form

You'll be able to: explain why you collect the other party's name before the consult, and what Rule 4-1.18 has to do with it.

A prospective client is owed duties before they ever sign. Under Rule 4-1.18, information a prospective client gives you in a consultation generally cannot be used or revealed, even if you never take the matter. And if that person tells you something that could significantly harm them, you may be disqualified from representing someone on the other side of the same or a substantially related matter.

Picture it. You represent Carlos in a custody matter. His wife calls your office, gets an hour with you, and tells you about her finances and her plans. Now you have information from a prospective client on the other side of your own client's case. That is a problem you created by not checking first.

The fix is to learn the other side's name before you learn the story. That is why every pack's form asks for it, and why the pipeline has a Conflict check stage before Consult scheduled.

What the check needs:

• The prospective client's full name, and any other names they use.
• The other party's name: the other driver, the spouse, the employer, the co-defendant.
• Related people where relevant: the insurance carrier in PI, the children in family, the person charged when someone else called.

What it does not need yet: the facts. Rule 4-1.18's protections are a reason to keep early intake narrow. The less a prospective client tells you before the check, the less there is to wall off if the check fails.

LegalCRM does not decide conflicts. It makes sure the names are in front of you, recorded, before the consult, and it stops a card from looking ready for a consult until the check is marked done.

Do it in LegalCRM

1. Open one form from each pack and find the conflict-check fields.
2. Open a test contact and find the same fields on the contact record.
3. Search your contacts for a name you know is in your system, the way you will during a real check.

Ask the Guide

Paste this into the AI guide, without client names or matter facts:

"In [practice], who besides the opposing party should I include in a conflict check at intake?"