Imported from RobertHH-IS/legalcode-skills (skills/legalcode-conflict-check/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add RobertHH-IS/legalcode-skills --skill legalcode-conflict-check. Copyright stays with the author.

Using this skill

Before following the workflow, read runtime and evidence requirements. They govern current tool use and source verification when older examples below differ from the connected runtime.

Legalcode Conflict Check

Disclaimer: This skill provides a framework for AI-assisted conflict of interest screening. It does not constitute legal advice. All conflict determinations should be reviewed by qualified conflicts counsel or a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before accepting or declining representations. Professional responsibility rules change; verify current applicability before relying on any provision described here. Statutory and regulatory references cited from memory carry hallucination risk — verify against authoritative sources before relying on them.

Purpose and Scope

This skill conducts comprehensive conflict of interest checks for law firms, identifying potential ethical barriers to representation and producing auditable clearance documentation. It supports both preliminary screening (before receiving confidential information) and comprehensive checking (after full intake).

Covers:

• Identification and classification of conflict types (direct, imputed, positional, corporate family, related party, prospective client, former client)
• Multi-party and corporate family relationship mapping
• Conflict waiver analysis (consentable vs. non-consentable)
• Ethical wall/screening protocol recommendations
• Lateral hire conflict assessment
• Auditable conflict clearance documentation
• Integration with conflict management systems

Does not:

• Make final accept/decline decisions (human judgment required)
• Provide legal advice on specific conflict scenarios
• Replace conflicts counsel or ethics committee review
• Apply to one jurisdiction exclusively — jurisdiction-agnostic with [JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] markers

Related skills:

• legalcode-client-intake-workflow — full client onboarding process
• legalcode-matter-triage-workflow — matter prioritization and routing
• legalcode-engagement-letter — engagement letter drafting (if available)

Jurisdiction and Governing Law

This skill is jurisdiction-agnostic. The firm's home jurisdiction and applicable bar rules determine which specific conflict rules apply. The workflow identifies the relevant regulatory framework early and adapts accordingly.

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] When localizing, research and apply:

• US (ABA Model Rules): Rules 1.7 (concurrent), 1.8 (specific transactions), 1.9 (former clients), 1.10 (imputation), 1.11 (government lawyers), 1.18 (prospective clients). State variations may apply.
• UK (SRA): Code of Conduct paragraphs 6.1 (own interest), 6.2 (client conflicts), "substantially common interest" and "competing for same objective" exceptions
• EU/Civil Law: National bar rules varying by jurisdiction; often stricter own-interest prohibitions
• Canada: Provincial law society rules (e.g., LSO Rules of Professional Conduct)
• Australia: State-based legal profession acts and professional conduct rules

Interactive Clarification

This skill uses interactive clarification at key decision points. Rather than assuming the firm's policies or the conflict scenario, the workflow pauses and asks when:

• The conflict type is ambiguous and classification affects the analysis
• Multiple resolution paths exist (waiver, screening, decline)
• Corporate family or related party relationships need clarification
• Risk tolerance or firm policy would change the recommendation

When you reach a ⟁ CLARIFY block, ask the user before proceeding — do not silently assume defaults. Use the harness's structured question tool when one is available:

• Claude Code / Agent SDK: invoke the AskUserQuestion tool. Limits: 1–4 questions per call, 2–4 options each, header ≤ 12 characters. Pass the CLARIFY options as the options array.
• OpenAI Codex CLI: invoke ask_user_question (runtime) or, in plan mode, request_user_input. Pass the CLARIFY options as choices.
• No structured tool available (other harnesses, CI, headless mode without a canUseTool callback): emit the CLARIFY questions as numbered plain text and stop until the user replies. Do not proceed with assumed answers.

Skip any CLARIFY question the user has already answered in the initial prompt or prior conversation. When you proceed with partial context, state every assumption explicitly so the user can correct it.

Workflow

Step 1: Accept Conflict Check Request

Accept the conflict check request in any of these formats:

• New client/matter: Prospective client name, adverse parties, matter description
• Lateral hire: Incoming attorney name, prior firm(s), client lists, matter history
• New matter for existing client: Client name, new matter description, new parties
• Related party transaction: Transaction parties, relationships, roles
• Batch check: Multiple parties or matters for simultaneous screening

Minimum information required before proceeding:

If information is incomplete, prompt for the missing elements. Incomplete party lists are a leading cause of missed conflicts.

Step 2: Gather Context

CLARIFY — Before running the conflict check, confirm the following. Present as structured options where possible:

1. Check type: What stage is this conflict check?

   • Options: Preliminary (before substantive discussion — protect against Rule 1.18 prospective client issues), Comprehensive (full intake with all parties known), Lateral hire (attorney joining firm), Matter expansion (new scope for existing client), Re-check (triggered by new party or changed circumstances)
   • Why this matters: Preliminary checks use limited information to avoid receiving disqualifying confidential information. Comprehensive checks require full party lists.

2. Firm conflict system access: Do you have access to the firm's conflict database?

   • Options: Yes (provide system name or describe), No (manual check), N/A (solo practitioner)
   • Why this matters: Determines search methodology and documentation requirements.

3. Regulatory framework: Which jurisdiction's conflict rules apply?

   • Options: US (ABA Model Rules + state), UK (SRA Code), Canada (provincial), EU (specify country), Australia (specify state), Other (specify)
   • Why this matters: Determines applicable conflict rules, waiver requirements, and screening procedures.

4. Firm conflict policy: Does the firm have a conflicts policy or manual?

   • Options: Yes (describe key policies), No (use general standards), Unknown
   • Why this matters: Firm policies may be stricter than bar minimum requirements.

If the user provides partial context, proceed with reasonable defaults and state assumptions explicitly.

Step 3: Identify All Parties for Screening

Before searching, compile the complete party list. Conflicts are often missed due to incomplete party identification.

CLARIFY — For each primary party, gather:

1. Individual clients:

   • Full legal name and aliases/former names
   • Spouse/partner (for family matters, estate planning)
   • Business affiliations
   • Known agents, representatives, or fiduciaries

2. Entity clients:

   • Legal entity name and all DBAs/trade names
   • Parent company and ultimate parent
   • Subsidiaries and affiliates (material ones)
   • Officers, directors, and key shareholders (10%+)
   • Related entities under common control

3. Adverse parties (same depth as above)

4. Related parties:

   • Co-parties (co-defendants, co-plaintiffs, joint venturers)
   • Insurers and their counsel
   • Lenders, investors, acquirers
   • Key witnesses and their counsel
   • Expert witnesses and consultants
   • Mediators, arbitrators (if known)

5. For lateral hires:

   • Prior firm(s) and dates
   • All clients represented (matters and dates)
   • All adverse parties faced
   • Any clients with "portable" expectations
   • Any ethical walls already in place

Corporate family mapping:

For entity clients, construct the corporate family tree to identify related party conflicts:

[Ultimate Parent]
  |-- [Parent Company] <-- Client or Adverse?
  |     |-- [Subsidiary A] <-- Consider as related
  |     |-- [Subsidiary B] <-- Consider as related
  |     |-- [JV Entity (50%)] <-- May be related depending on control
  |
  |-- [Affiliate Entity] <-- Under common control

Apply the "unity of interest" test: Do the entities share officers, directors, legal representation, finances, or operations such that adversity to one is effectively adversity to the other?

Step 4: Search Conflict Database

Execute the conflict search using all identified parties and variations.

Search parameters:

Database scope:

• Current client database (active matters)
• Former client database (closed matters, per retention policy)
• Prospective client records (declined/not-engaged)
• Lateral hire records (imported client lists)
• Adverse party records
• Business development contacts (if separate)
• Personal contacts of requesting attorney

Document the search:

conflict_search:
  date: "[date]"
  searcher: "[name or AI-assisted]"
  parties_searched: "[count]"
  databases_searched:
    - "[database 1]"
    - "[database 2]"
  search_methods:
    - "Exact match"
    - "Phonetic (Soundex)"
    - "Fuzzy matching"
  results:
    exact_matches: "[count]"
    potential_matches: "[count]"
    no_match: "[count]"

Step 5: Analyze Search Results

For each search hit, analyze whether it represents an actual conflict.

CLARIFY — For each potential match, determine:

1. Is this the same party? (identity confirmation)

   • Same entity/individual, or false positive (different person, common name)?
   • If uncertain, flag for human verification.

2. What is the relationship? (role classification)

   • Current client, former client, prospective client, adverse party, related party, witness, other?

3. What is the matter relationship? (substantial relationship test)

   • Same matter, substantially related matter, or unrelated matter?
   • Would confidential information from the prior matter be material to the current matter?

Conflict classification:

Step 6: Classify Conflict Severity

For each identified conflict, classify severity to determine the appropriate resolution path.

CLEAR — No Conflict

No conflict exists. Representation may proceed without restriction.

Criteria (ALL must be true):

• No matches found for any party, OR
• All matches confirmed as false positives (different entity/individual), OR
• Matches found but no adversity, no substantial relationship, and no material limitation

Action: Document clearance. Proceed with engagement.

YELLOW — Potential Conflict (Waivable)

A conflict exists but may be waivable with proper informed consent.

Criteria (ANY):

• Concurrent conflict but lawyer reasonably believes competent representation is possible
• Former client conflict with no shared confidential information material to current matter
• Positional conflict with minimal risk of adverse impact
• Corporate family conflict where entities have genuinely separate interests
• Imputed conflict where screening may be available (lateral hire)

Action: Analyze waiver requirements. Prepare conflict waiver. Implement safeguards.

RED — Definite Conflict (Non-Waivable or High-Risk)

A conflict exists that cannot be waived or presents unacceptable risk.

Criteria (ANY):

• Same-matter direct adversity (client vs. client in same proceeding)
• Lawyer cannot reasonably believe competent representation possible
• Representation prohibited by law
• Former client matter is substantially related with material confidential information
• Prospective client disclosed significantly harmful information
• Own-interest conflict (SRA: absolute bar; ABA: disclosure required but often impractical)

Action: Decline representation or implement formal ethical wall with proper screening protocol. Escalate to conflicts counsel.

Conflict Type Deep Dive

1. Direct Concurrent Conflicts (Rule 1.7(a)(1))

Definition: Representation of one client is directly adverse to another current client.

Key analysis points:

• Is the adverse party a current client of any lawyer in the firm?
• Does the adversity arise in litigation, negotiation, or any other context?
• Even if matters are unrelated, direct adversity to a current client is prohibited without consent

Common scenarios:

• Suing a current client (even in an unrelated matter)
• Negotiating against a current client for a different client
• Taking a position in regulatory proceedings adverse to a current client

Waiver requirements (if consentable):

• Lawyer must reasonably believe they can provide competent, diligent representation
• Not involving assertion of claim by one client against another in same proceeding
• Informed consent from BOTH affected clients, confirmed in writing
• Disclose nature of conflict, risks, and implications of dual representation

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] SRA (UK): Client conflicts under paragraph 6.2 may only be waived if "substantially common interest" or "competing for same objective" exception applies. More restrictive than ABA Model Rules. [VERIFY]

2. Material Limitation Conflicts (Rule 1.7(a)(2))

Definition: Representation is materially limited by duties to another client, a former client, a third person, or the lawyer's own interests.

Key analysis points:

• Would the lawyer's judgment or actions be constrained by other obligations?
• Is there a significant risk that representation will be materially limited?
• Consider: other client duties, personal interests, financial interests, prior relationships

Common scenarios:

• Personal relationship with adverse party (family, close friend)
• Financial interest in transaction outcome
• Lawyer's fear of losing another client affects advice
• Lawyer previously made an error that affects current advice
• Board membership or business relationship with adverse party

Waiver requirements (if consentable):

• Full disclosure of the limiting factor
• Lawyer reasonably believes representation will not be adversely affected
• Client provides informed consent in writing

3. Former Client Conflicts (Rule 1.9)

Definition: Representation adverse to a former client in the same or substantially related matter, or use of confidential information to the former client's disadvantage.

Substantial relationship test:

Is the current matter the same as, or substantially related to, the prior matter?
  |
  v
"Substantially related" = matters in which lawyer could have acquired confidential
information that would be material to the current matter
  |
  v
If YES: Presumption that confidential information was shared. Conflict exists.
If NO: No conflict from former representation (but check imputation).

Key analysis points:

• What matters did the firm handle for the former client?
• What confidential information might the firm possess?
• Would that information be material to the current adverse matter?
• How much time has passed? (relevant but not dispositive)

Waiver requirements:

• Informed consent from the former client, confirmed in writing
• May be more difficult to obtain than current client consent

4. Prospective Client Conflicts (Rule 1.18)

Definition: Duties owed to a prospective client (someone who consulted about possible representation but was not engaged) that create conflict for current representation.

Key issue: A lawyer who receives information from a prospective client that could be "significantly harmful" to that person cannot represent an adverse party in the same or substantially related matter.

Mitigation strategies:

• Limit initial consultation to identify conflicts before receiving substantive facts
• Use intake questionnaires that gather party names before confidential details
• Implement prospective client conflict checks BEFORE detailed discussions

Screening exception: If the disqualified lawyer is timely screened and receives no fee from the matter, the firm may be able to proceed (jurisdiction-dependent).

5. Imputed Conflicts (Rule 1.10)

Definition: One lawyer's conflict is imputed (attributed) to all lawyers in the firm.

General rule: If one lawyer in a firm has a conflict, the entire firm is deemed to have that conflict.

Exceptions (vary by jurisdiction):

• Personal interest conflicts that do not present significant risk
• Timely screening of disqualified lateral hires (in jurisdictions permitting screening)
• Former firm conflicts where lawyer did not acquire confidential information
• Nonlawyer conflicts (may be screened in some jurisdictions)

Lateral hire analysis:

1. Identify all prior clients and matters of the incoming attorney
2. Check each against the firm's current and former client list
3. For each match, apply the substantial relationship test
4. If conflict exists, determine if screening is permitted under local rules
5. Implement ethical wall if screening is available and appropriate

6. Positional (Issue) Conflicts

Definition: Taking inconsistent legal positions for different clients in unrelated matters that could materially limit representation.

Key analysis points:

• Are the legal positions directly contradictory?
• Is there a substantial risk that the position in one case will create adverse precedent for the other client?
• Are the matters pending in the same jurisdiction/court?
• Would success for one client materially harm the other's position?

When consentable:

• Different jurisdictions (precedent impact minimal)
• Different courts or tribunals
• Positions are distinguishable on the facts
• No reasonable probability one outcome will affect the other

When non-consentable:

• Same court, same legal issue, direct precedent impact
• Lawyer cannot competently argue both positions

7. Corporate Family Conflicts

Definition: Conflicts arising from adverse positions against affiliates, subsidiaries, or related entities of a current client.

Unity of interest test — Consider whether the entities:

• Share common officers or directors
• Share legal representation (same outside counsel)
• Have integrated operations or finances
• Treat each other as a single economic unit
• Would view adversity to one as adversity to both

If unity exists: Treat as a single client for conflict purposes. If genuinely separate: May be able to proceed, but document analysis and consider disclosure.

CLARIFY — When corporate family relationships are ambiguous:

"The prospective matter involves [Company B], which appears to be [related to/affiliated with] your current client [Company A]. Please clarify:

• What is the ownership/control relationship?
• Do they share officers, directors, or legal counsel?
• Does [Company A] consider [Company B] part of 'the client'?
• Has [Company A] previously requested that affiliates be included in conflict checks?"

Conflict Waiver Analysis

Waiver Availability Matrix

Waiver Requirements Checklist

For each conflict where waiver is sought:

• Waivability confirmed: Conflict is of a type that can be waived
• Reasonableness belief: Lawyer reasonably believes competent representation is possible
• Not prohibited by law: No statutory bar to representation
• Not same-proceeding adversity: Clients not directly adverse in same litigation
• Full disclosure made: All material facts and risks disclosed to client(s)
• Independent judgment opportunity: Client had opportunity to consult independent counsel
• Voluntary consent: Consent not coerced or pressured
• Written confirmation: Consent confirmed in writing (signed waiver or email confirmation)
• Mutual consent (if applicable): All affected clients provided consent
• Waiver filed: Copy retained in conflict clearance file

Waiver Letter Elements

A conflict waiver should include:

1. Identification of conflict: Clear description of the conflict situation
2. Parties affected: Who has the conflict and who is affected
3. Nature of the conflict: Type and source of the conflict
4. Potential risks: How the conflict could adversely affect the client
5. Safeguards: What measures will be taken to protect client interests
6. Scope of waiver: What specific conflict(s) are being waived
7. Future conflicts: Whether waiver extends to future related conflicts (advance waiver)
8. Right to decline: Client's right to refuse and seek other counsel
9. Acknowledgment: Client acknowledges understanding and voluntarily consents
10. Signature and date: Client signature confirming consent

Ethical Wall (Screening) Protocols

When screening is permitted as an alternative to firm-wide disqualification, implement formal ethical wall procedures.

When Screening May Be Available

Screening Protocol Requirements

Timely implementation (CRITICAL):

• Screen MUST be implemented as soon as conflict is identified
• Delay in screening can defeat the protection
• Document date/time of screening implementation

Physical and electronic barriers:

• Screened person removed from matter access in document management system
• Screened person removed from matter billing codes
• Electronic files locked from screened person's access
• Physical files (if any) secured away from screened person
• Calendar entries for matter meetings exclude screened person
• Email distribution lists exclude screened person

Communication barriers:

• Firm-wide notice issued identifying screened person and matter
• Instructions not to discuss matter with screened person
• Screened person acknowledges screen in writing
• Supervising attorney designated to monitor compliance

Fee isolation:

• Screened person receives no fee, bonus, or compensation tied to the matter
• This must be documented and verifiable

Notice to affected parties:

• Written notice to affected client(s) explaining screening
• Notice to former client/adverse party (if required by rule)
• Notice includes opportunity to challenge or seek disqualification

Ongoing monitoring:

• Periodic compliance checks documented
• Immediate reporting of any breach
• Remediation procedures if breach occurs

Screen Documentation Template

ethical_screen:
  matter: "[matter name/number]"
  screened_person: "[name]"
  reason_for_screen: "[conflict type and description]"
  date_implemented: "[date]"
  implemented_by: "[conflicts counsel or responsible attorney]"
  measures:
    electronic_access_removed: true/false
    physical_files_secured: true/false
    billing_access_removed: true/false
    calendar_exclusion: true/false
    firm_notice_issued: true/false
    acknowledgment_signed: true/false
  fee_isolation:
    no_fee_participation: true/false
    documented: true/false
  notices_sent:
    - recipient: "[client/former client]"
      date: "[date]"
      method: "[email/letter]"
  monitoring:
    compliance_checks: "[frequency]"
    responsible_person: "[name]"
  status: "Active / Lifted / Breached"

Lateral Hire Conflict Analysis

Special workflow for screening conflicts when attorneys join the firm.

Step L1: Gather Prior Representation Information

From the incoming attorney:

• Complete list of all clients represented at prior firm(s)
• All matters worked on (with dates)
• All adverse parties faced
• Any clients with expectations of ongoing representation
• Any ethical walls already in place at prior firm
• Any advance waivers or consent agreements

From the prior firm (if available):

• Client lists may be provided subject to confidentiality
• Some firms provide "clean lists" that exclude confidential matter details

Step L2: Cross-Reference Against Firm Conflicts Database

For EACH client and matter from the incoming attorney:

1. Search firm's current client list — is this party now adverse to the firm?
2. Search firm's former client list — substantially related matters?
3. Search firm's adverse party list — would incoming attorney be conflicted?
4. Search firm's prospective client list — any unconsummated representations?

Step L3: Analyze Each Conflict

For each hit:

Step L4: Determine Resolution

Quality Assurance Framework

Citation Quality Gates

Run these 5 gates silently before delivering any conflict analysis. If any gate fails, revise before delivering.

Self-Interrogation for RED Conflicts

For any conflict classified as RED (non-waivable or high-risk), apply this 3-pass review:

Pass 1 — Rule Application:

• Is the conflict classification correct under the applicable rules?
• Has the right test been applied (substantial relationship, material limitation, etc.)?
• Could a reasonable conflicts counsel reach a different conclusion?

Pass 2 — Completeness:

• Have all affected parties been identified?
• Have all relevant matters been checked?
• Are there screening or consent options not yet considered?

Pass 3 — Challenge:

• What is the strongest argument that this conflict IS waivable or manageable?
• Are there factual distinctions that would change the analysis?
• Would the affected client(s) likely consent if asked?

If any pass reveals a weakness, revise the analysis before delivery.

Confidence Scoring

For each conflict determination, assign a confidence level:

Glass Box Audit Trail

Every conflict check output MUST include a Glass Box audit section for traceability:

glass_box:
  conflict_check_id: "[reference number]"
  check_type: "Preliminary / Comprehensive / Lateral / Re-check"
  date: "[date]"
  requesting_attorney: "[name]"
  prospective_client: "[name]"
  matter_type: "[description]"
  jurisdiction: "[regulatory framework applied]"
  parties_searched: "[count]"
  databases_searched:
    - "[database 1]"
    - "[database 2]"
  matches_found: "[count]"
  conflicts_identified: "[count]"
  conflict_classifications:
    clear: "[count]"
    yellow_waivable: "[count]"
    red_non_waivable: "[count]"
  resolutions:
    - conflict: "[description]"
      classification: "CLEAR / YELLOW / RED"
      resolution: "Cleared / Waiver obtained / Screen implemented / Declined"
  waivers_required: "[count]"
  waivers_obtained: "[count]"
  screens_implemented: "[count]"
  legalcode_mcp: "Connected / Not connected"
  rules_consulted:
    - "[Rule 1.7 — VERIFIED / UNVERIFIED]"
    - "[Rule 1.9 — VERIFIED / UNVERIFIED]"
  confidence: "HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — [rationale]"
  limitations:
    - "[Any scope limitations, assumptions, or caveats]"
  reviewer: "AI-assisted — requires qualified conflicts counsel review"
  final_status: "CLEARED / CONDITIONAL (waivers pending) / BLOCKED (decline required)"

Anti-Patterns

Explicit catalogue of what NOT to do in conflict checking:

1. Incomplete party lists — Checking only the named client and adverse party without expanding to corporate family, related parties, witnesses, and insurers. This is the leading cause of missed conflicts.

2. Skipping preliminary checks — Receiving confidential information from a prospective client before running a conflict check. This can disqualify the entire firm under Rule 1.18.

3. Single-database reliance — Checking only the current client database and missing former clients, adverse parties, or imported lateral hire conflicts.

4. Phonetic/fuzzy match skipping — Relying only on exact name matches and missing spelling variations, name changes, or data entry errors.

5. Corporate family blindness — Failing to analyze whether related entities should be treated as a single client for conflict purposes.

6. Premature waiver assumption — Assuming all conflicts are waivable without analyzing whether the specific conflict type permits consent.

7. Stale clearance reliance — Using an old conflict clearance when new parties have been added, the matter scope has changed, or new lawyers have joined the firm.

8. Undocumented clearances — Clearing a conflict verbally or informally without creating an auditable record. If it is not documented, it did not happen.

9. Ignoring positional conflicts — Focusing only on party-based conflicts and missing issue conflicts where the firm takes inconsistent legal positions.

10. Delayed screening — Implementing an ethical wall after the disqualified lawyer has already accessed matter files or discussions. Late screens may not protect against disqualification.

11. Fee participation in screened matters — Allowing a screened lawyer to share in fees from the screened matter, which defeats the screening protection.

12. Informal waiver acceptance — Accepting oral consent or an ambiguous email as a conflict waiver without proper written confirmation and required disclosures.

13. Assuming former client consent — Proceeding against a former client without analyzing whether the matter is substantially related and whether consent is needed.

14. Ignoring government lawyer rules — Failing to apply the special conflict rules (Rule 1.11) for former government attorneys, which have different screening requirements.

15. Lateral hire delay — Waiting until after a lateral hire starts to run conflict checks. Conflicts should be identified during the hiring process.

Writing Standards

Apply plain-language discipline to all conflict documentation:

For conflict clearance memos:

• State the conclusion first (CLEARED / CONDITIONAL / BLOCKED)
• Plain language, active voice
• Identify all parties and their roles
• Cite specific rules with precision
• Document the search and analysis
• State assumptions and limitations

For conflict waiver letters (client-facing):

• Plain language accessible to non-lawyers
• Clear identification of the conflict
• Honest disclosure of risks
• Client-friendly explanation of safeguards
• Clear consent language

Quality gates before delivery:

1. Can conflicts counsel understand and act on this memo?
2. Is every conflict classification supported by the applicable rule?
3. Are all parties accounted for and correctly identified?
4. Is the audit trail complete?
5. Would this memo survive bar disciplinary review?

External Tool Integration

This skill integrates with legalcode-mcp for regulatory research and verification.

With legalcode-mcp connected:

• Search for jurisdiction-specific conflict of interest rules
• Verify current professional conduct rules and amendments
• Research ethics opinions on novel conflict scenarios
• Check for recent disciplinary actions involving conflicts
• Mark all legalcode-mcp-sourced references as VERIFIED

Without legalcode-mcp:

• Mark all rule references with [VERIFY]
• Note in Glass Box: legalcode_mcp: "Not connected"
• Use general knowledge of ABA Model Rules and SRA Code
• Recommend verification against current bar rules before relying on analysis

Output Format Template

Structure the completed conflict check documentation as:

## Conflict Check Report

**Check ID**: [reference number]
**Date**: [date]
**Check Type**: [Preliminary / Comprehensive / Lateral / Re-check]
**Requesting Attorney**: [name]
**Regulatory Framework**: [jurisdiction]

---

## Summary: [CLEARED / CONDITIONAL / BLOCKED]

[One-paragraph summary of outcome and any required actions]

---

## Parties Searched

### Primary Parties

| Party  | Role                         | Variations Searched |
| ------ | ---------------------------- | ------------------- |
| [Name] | [Client / Adverse / Related] | [Aliases, DBAs]     |

### Corporate Family

[Corporate family tree if applicable]

---

## Search Results

**Databases searched**: [list]
**Total parties searched**: [count]
**Matches found**: [count]
**Conflicts identified**: [count]

---

## Conflict Analysis

### [Conflict 1] — [CLEAR / YELLOW / RED]

**Parties involved**: [names]
**Conflict type**: [direct / former client / imputed / etc.]
**Applicable rule**: [Rule 1.7(a)(1), etc.]
**Analysis**: [substantive analysis]
**Resolution**: [cleared / waiver required / screen implemented / decline]
**Confidence**: [level]

[Repeat for each conflict]

---

## Required Actions

### Waivers Needed

| Affected Client | Conflict Type | Status                          |
| --------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------- |
| [Name]          | [Type]        | [Pending / Obtained / Declined] |

### Screens Required

| Screened Person | Matter   | Implementation Date |
| --------------- | -------- | ------------------- |
| [Name]          | [Matter] | [Date]              |

---

## Clearance Determination

**Final Status**: [CLEARED / CONDITIONAL / BLOCKED]
**Conditions** (if any): [list any conditions such as pending waivers]
**Approved by**: [conflicts counsel name / pending review]
**Expiration**: [date, if re-check required for matter changes]

---

## Glass Box Audit Trail

[YAML block per Glass Box section]

Localization Notes

This skill is jurisdiction-agnostic. To create a jurisdiction-specific variant:

1. Replace [JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] markers with specific bar rules
2. Replace [VERIFY] tags with verified rule citations
3. Add jurisdiction-specific conflict types or exceptions
4. Add jurisdiction-specific screening rules and limitations
5. Include jurisdiction-specific waiver requirements
6. Add jurisdiction-specific anti-patterns
7. Update frontmatter to reference the specific jurisdiction

Key jurisdiction variations to address:

• US (by state): ABA Model Rules adopted with state variations; screening rules differ significantly by state
• UK (England & Wales): SRA Code; stricter "own interest" bar; different exceptions for client conflicts
• Canada: Provincial law societies; varies by province
• Australia: State-based; some states stricter on screening
• EU: National bar rules vary significantly; some prohibit any concurrent conflicts

Provenance

Created by Legalcode (2026-03-02). Original synthesis combining ABA Model Rules 1.7-1.10, SRA Code of Conduct conflict provisions, conflict management system best practices, and law firm intake procedures into a comprehensive jurisdiction-agnostic conflict checking skill. Research sources include ABA Model Rules and Comments, SRA Code of Conduct (2024-2025), FATF conflict of interest guidance, and legal ethics literature on conflict management.