Conflict Checks

Party screening that fits a real intake counter

Conflict checks are most useful when they are done at the point of first contact, then carried through to opening a new matter. This module lets your team capture party names, trading names, related entities and notes against a proposed matter so the search is not left to memory or scattered messages. It is built for firms that need a steady internal process, not a loose checklist stuck on a noticeboard.

The layout suits attorneys, paralegals and matter openers who need to compare a new instruction against past work, linked parties and older file names. Searches can be run from the matter record or from a central intake view, with permission controls that keep sensitive results visible only to the right people.

• Record individuals, companies, trusts and related parties
• Search by matter name, party name or linked reference fields
• Keep notes on potential matches for internal review
• Attach conflict outcomes to the matter history

Search depth for messy names and repeat instructions

South African firms often deal with name variations, abbreviations and group structures that do not show up neatly in a single search field. The conflict module supports flexible matching so a query can pick up spelling changes, initials, old matter titles and party names that were captured differently over time. That helps reduce the noise that comes from duplicate records and half-finished file labels.

It also works well where a firm has multiple offices or mixed practice areas. A property dispute in Sandton may need a different conflict view from a labour instruction in Pretoria, but both still need the same careful record of names, prior instructions and related entities. The search screen keeps that information in one place without pushing staff into shared drives or separate spreadsheets.

Options for smaller teams and larger practices

The module can be set up for a single practice or for a larger firm with multiple users and review layers. Smaller teams usually want a straightforward intake screen, basic matter-name matching and a clear pass or flag outcome. Bigger practices often ask for stricter permission levels, review queues and a fuller audit trail so partners and operations teams can see who checked what and when.

• Single-office setup for lean teams
• Multi-branch setup for firms in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town, Durban and Bloemfontein
• Role-based access for fee earners, support staff and reviewers
• Optional fields for related parties, file aliases and internal notes
• Search queues for pre-opening review and escalations

Getting it fitted into your matter workflow

Conflict checks work best when they sit close to matter opening, not as a separate chore that people forget at busy times. Setup usually starts with your current matter fields, naming patterns and internal review steps so the module reflects how the firm already records instructions. That may include importing legacy matter names, cleaning up party records and setting permissions for people who may view search results.

For firms that handle a high volume of new instructions, the setup can be linked to templated intake steps and approval routes. A reviewer can be asked to clear a flagged match before the matter moves ahead, which keeps the process practical without adding extra noise to the rest of the file.

• Implementation Planning for naming rules and intake steps
• Data Migration for older matter records and party lists
• Permissions Setup for restricted conflict review access
• Workflow Configuration for sign-off and escalation

Security, audit trails and POPIA-aware handling

Conflict records often contain personal information, commercial details and other sensitive material, so security needs to be handled with care. The module uses access controls, activity logs and secure hosting practices so the firm can manage internal review records in a controlled way. POPIA considerations are part of the conversation, especially where matter history, identity details or company names are being stored for checks.

Audit trails matter as much as the search itself. A firm needs to know when a party was entered, who reviewed the result, and whether a flagged matter was cleared, escalated or left on hold. That record supports internal governance and gives the operations team a cleaner view when questions arise later on.

What to confirm before the module is set up

A clean conflict process depends on the right details being captured from the start. Before setup, it helps to confirm the names you want searched, the way your firm handles related parties and how broad the review should be. Some teams only want exact party matches, while others need broader review rules for group companies, family names or repeated instructions from the same business group.

It is also worth confirming how the team will use the search results day to day. If junior staff open matters and seniors clear the flags, the workflow should reflect that. If one office checks intake and another office finalises the matter record, the permissions and review notes need to match that split.

• Party types to be recorded, including individuals and entities
• Matter fields used for searches and matching
• Review roles and clearance rules
• Whether older files need migration into the searchable set
• Preferred office structure and branch access