WorkflowLaw Firm Risk, Intake & Compliance

Lateral Hire Conflict Check

A lateral hire conflicts check that reads the partner’s questionnaire and the court dockets, lays each prior matter against the firm’s own, and drafts the screens and notices the general counsel signs.

Watch it work Book a walkthrough

See each step from questionnaire to signed memo ↓

Watch with transcript →

The problem

The matter a lateral forgets is the one opposing counsel finds

Retyping comes first: an analyst keys the partner’s questionnaire into the conflicts system row by row. The name search comes back with hundreds of hits, each one an analyst must clear, and the list itself is only as complete as the partner’s memory.

What goes missing is the short work: a second-chair role opened under another partner’s name, an appeal, a local-counsel appearance, a pro bono case. When one of those sits across from a current client, it surfaces after the lawyer has started, the screen is no longer timely, and the firm is answering a disqualification motion.

Meanwhile recruiting waits for an answer, and a competing firm with a faster clearance makes its offer first.

Built forConflicts analystsFirm general counselsRecruiting managersHiring committees

The Problem Today

A partner’s questionnaire lists only the matters the partner remembers, and the forgotten one can disqualify the firm.

3,009: lateral partners hired by the 200 highest-grossing firms in 2025 published

Done by hand today

Retyping
Name hits
Rules
Notices

A slow answer loses himA clearance past a week puts the hire at risk
Screens raised too lateA screen put up after he starts is not timely

The Solution

Every matter readEach client and opposing party on the questionnaire named and cited
The dockets fill the gapsCourt records show the cases he never listed, before the offer
Each overlap gets its ruleCleared with a reason, or a screen or consent proposed, with the notice
The general counsel decidesThe offer cleared with its conditions, signed and on the record

Built-in controls

The general counsel signs each notice and letter
Recruiting sees outcomes, not former clients’ names
No agent contacts a court or a former client

What You Get

Firms hire laterals without inheriting a surprise, and former clients hear about each screen in time.

97%: of firm name hits cleared with a written reason our estimate

Forgotten matters foundCourt dockets checked against each questionnaire
Screens ready before day oneAcknowledged, locked and noticed before the start date
Recruiting kept in the loopStatus and conditions, without former clients’ names

The check, in order

A lateral hire conflicts check, from the questionnaire to the signed memo

Each feature covers one stage of the check, from reading the questionnaire to the general counsel’s signed decision.

01Questionnaire, as read
A questionnaire read row by row, with a page and line behind each party
How it works
- Reads 14 pages: 186 matters and 131 clients, each row cited to page and line
- Merges 23 name variants of the same clients before the search
- Flags 6 rows with a blank adverse party and drafts one question back
- Checks the list holds only what a lateral may disclose to find conflicts
Conflicts analystNo more keying a fourteen-page questionnaire into the conflicts system before the first search can even start.
02Cases on the dockets
Court dockets read for the cases the questionnaire left out
How it works
- Reads 1,904 docket entries naming the lateral, grouped into 117 cases
- Matches 108 cases to listed matters and flags the 9 that are not listed
- Shows each unlisted case with its docket entry and why it may be missing
- The analyst adds it, asks the candidate, or sets it aside with a reason
Conflicts analystFinds the second-chair role, the appeal and the pro bono case the partner forgot, before the offer, when a screen can still go up in time.
03Career timeline
A career timeline that lays every prior matter against the firm’s own
How it works
- Each of 195 prior matters is a bar across its years, hatched when found only on a docket
- Below, each overlap pairs his matter with the firm’s matter for the same party
- Each lane ends on its finding: the rule raised, same side or not adverse
- With the dockets switched on, 13 overlaps become 14
Conflicts analystSees a whole career against the firm’s matters on one screen, instead of scrolling hundreds of rows to find the few that collide.
04A name hit, cleared
Firm name hits narrowed, and each cleared hit keeps its reason
How it works
- Searches 9,860 clients and 23,400 matters with name variants and corporate families
- Clears different entities, same-side work and closed, unrelated matters with a written reason
- Leaves 38 of 1,247 hits for a person to read; 14 hold up as overlaps
- A holding company and a family trust that share only a name close as no conflict
Conflicts analystEnds the day spent clearing hundreds of name hits one at a time, and keeps each automatic clearance open to a second look.
05One overlap, compared
Each overlap beside the firm’s matter, with the rule it raises
How it works
- His matter and the firm’s, side by side: side, years, forum and source
- The rule raised, with the rule text one click away
- The rule classifier’s reasoning, here 96% sure
- The analyst accepts the proposal or changes it, and the reason stays on file
Conflicts analystDecides each overlap with both matters and the rule in one view, not pieced together from two systems and a rulebook.
06Screens and consent
A screen drafted with its acknowledgements, workspace locks and fee bar
How it works
- Lists the 10 people on the firm’s matter team, 7 lawyers and 3 staff, to acknowledge
- Names 3 document workspaces to lock and blocks his time entry on the matter
- Tells the compensation committee he takes no part of the fee
- Tracks each step against his start date
Records and systems administratorGets the acknowledgements and locks lined up before the start date, so the screen is up on day one.
07Notice to the former client
A former-client notice drafted from the firm’s template, held for signature
How it works
- Four parts: the screen, the firm’s compliance, review before a tribunal and prompt answers
- Built on the firm’s own notice template
- Certifications of compliance scheduled on request and when the screen ends
- Goes nowhere until the general counsel signs
General counselThe written notice a screen depends on is ready to sign before the lateral arrives.
08Consent request
A consent request and a held start date, where a screen falls short
How it works
- Flags a matter he led for three years, where the state rule bars a screen after substantial participation
- Drafts a consent request to the former client’s general counsel
- Holds his start date until the former client answers
- If consent is refused, the general counsel decides how the firm’s matter proceeds
General counselLearns before the offer that one matter needs a former client’s written yes, and sets the start date around it.
09Clearance memo, decided
A cited clearance memo the general counsel decides and signs
How it works
- What was checked, what was found and the four conditions, each statement cited
- An annex gives the reason each of the 11 cleared overlaps raises no conflict
- The general counsel clears, holds or declines, with a reason and an attestation
- Recruiting is told the offer can go, with its conditions
General counselClears the offer five business days after the questionnaire arrived, with each condition written down for the hiring committee.

The forgotten defense, the short role, the barred screen and the false match

Four findings from one partner’s move, each settled before the offer.

A defense found only on a docket

For two years he defended a power company as second chair, in a case opened under the lead partner’s name. The firm now arbitrates the same gas transportation agreement against that company.

Twelve hours that still count

He billed 12 hours on a refiner’s indemnity defense. The firm now sues that refiner under the same purchase agreement, so even a short role needs a screen and a notice.

A state rule where a screen falls short

He led a catalyst trade-secret case. The firm is now adverse to that client on the same technology, under a rule that bars a screen after substantial participation, so consent is asked for.

A name match that is no conflict

A holding company he represented and a family trust the firm acts for share a name and nothing else. It is cleared at 95% confidence, with the reason on file.

Around the clearance

The rest of the lateral hire conflicts check, from candidate to recruiting

What the analyst, the general counsel and recruiting open around the overlaps.

Follow-up question to the candidate about blank adverse parties and the cases on the dockets, routed through the recruiting manager — **One question back to the candidate**Drafted from the questionnaire and sent through recruiting, who owns the relationship. It asks only for client names, other parties and years.

Career timeline built from the questionnaire only: 186 matters and 13 overlaps, with a prompt to add the court dockets — **The questionnaire alone**With the dockets switched off, the timeline holds 186 listed matters and 13 overlaps. The defense found only on a docket is not there.

Audit trail of searches, reads, proposals and reviews by agents and people, each with its time, reason and the record it touched — **A trail of each search and decision**Each search, read, proposal and review with its time and reason, locked against change and kept 7 years after the hiring decision.

Settings for name matching, roles and duties, and notice templates, each change proposed and then approved by the general counsel — **Matching rules, changed only with the general counsel’s approval**Name variants and corporate families on, weak name matches cleared with a written reason, and anything adverse to a current client sent to a person.

Table of 12 lateral candidates by stage, with matter and overlap counts, conditions, offer dates and who each one waits on — **The laterals in flight**12 laterals this quarter by stage, with matters, overlaps, conditions, the offer date and who each one is waiting on.

Recruiting manager’s view of the career timeline with former clients masked as lettered labels and the cleared offer date at the top — **What recruiting sees**The same timeline with each former client shown as a letter. Recruiting sees what an overlap means for the offer, never who it involves.

Who prepares the file

Agents read, search and draft, while lawyers keep every signature

Each covers one stage of the check and stops where a lawyer’s judgment begins.

Questionnaire reader

Reads the questionnaire and matter list in any layout, and cites each client, party, role, court and year to page and line.

Never fills a blank by guessing: a missing party becomes a question

Docket searcher

Finds the public dockets naming the lateral, matches cases to listed matters and flags the rest.

Never contacts the candidate’s current firm or any court

Conflict searcher

Searches the firm’s clients and matters with name variants and corporate families, and clears obvious hits.

Never clears a hit without a reason a person can read

Rule classifier

Classifies each overlap under the conflict and imputation rules and the matter’s state rule, and proposes cleared, screen or consent.

Never decides
Cites the rule text for each proposal

Screen and notice drafter

Drafts the screen memo, the acknowledgements, the lock list and the former-client notice or consent letter.

Never sends anything

Clearance memo writer

Drafts the hiring committee memo with its conditions, each statement cited.

Never discloses a former client’s confidences beyond names and public dockets

The analyst rules on overlaps, and only the general counsel clears an offer

Agents prepare the drafts. These four decisions stay with named roles in the firm.

Whether an overlap is a conflictThe rule classifier proposes. The conflicts analyst accepts or changes each overlap, and a change keeps its reason on file.

Whether a screen will doThe general counsel decides each screen and each consent request, including where a state rule allows no screen at all.

What reaches a former clientNotices and consent letters go out only over the general counsel’s signature.

Whether the offer goesThe general counsel clears, holds or declines with a reason. Recruiting then sees the outcome and the conditions, and nothing of the former clients.

Clearing a lateral partner: the questions firms raise first

What is a lateral hire conflicts check?

A lateral hire conflicts check clears the clients and matters a lawyer brings from earlier firms against the hiring firm’s own, before the offer. Here agents read the questionnaire and the dockets, search the firm’s records and draft the screens; the analyst reviews and the general counsel decides.

What if the partner leaves a matter off the questionnaire?

The docket searcher reads the public dockets that name the lateral and matches each case to a listed matter. A case with no match comes back with its docket entry and a likely reason, and the analyst adds it, asks the candidate or sets it aside.

Does it decide whether a screen is enough?

No. The rule classifier proposes cleared, screen or consent and cites the rule text, including a state rule that bars a screen after substantial participation. The analyst reviews each proposal; the general counsel decides.

Who sees the former clients’ names?

The conflicts team and the general counsel. Recruiting sees the stage, the offer date and the conditions, with each former client shown only as a letter.

Is anything sent to a former client or a court automatically?

No. Agents draft the screen memo, the acknowledgements, the notices and any consent letter. The general counsel signs each one, and no agent contacts a court, the candidate’s current firm or a former client.

How does it work with our conflicts records and document system?

It reads the firm’s client and matter records, open and closed, with name variants and corporate families. Each screen becomes workspace locks and a time-entry block, applied by the records administrator.

Law Firm Risk, Intake & Compliance