Search your entire matter history for potential conflicts of interest in seconds — protecting your firm from SRA breaches and professional embarrassment.
SRA rules require firms to identify and manage conflicts of interest before acting. When this relies on memory, keyword searches across disparate systems, or asking around the office, subtle conflicts are missed — exposing the firm to regulatory action, negligence claims, and the cost of disengaging from a matter mid-stream.
Keyword searches miss name variations, associated companies, and historical connections buried in closed files.
Manual conflict checks delay intake and frustrate prospective clients waiting for a response.
Verbal checks and email confirmations leave no defensible record for SRA inspections.
Purpose-built capabilities — not generic templates you have to work around.
Searches account for spelling variations, maiden names, trading names, and associated entities to catch conflicts that keyword searches miss.
Every client, party, and associated contact across all matters — open and closed — is included in the conflict search.
Potential conflicts are flagged with context, and the supervising partner records their resolution decision in the system.
Every search, result, and resolution decision is logged with timestamps, providing a defensible record for regulatory review.
Enter the prospective client name, opposing party, and any associated entities to trigger the conflict search.
The system returns a ranked list of potential matches with matter context, highlighting the nature of any connection.
The supervising partner reviews each flag, records their decision (no conflict, waivable conflict, or absolute bar), and signs off.
If cleared, the intake continues; if an absolute conflict exists, the prospective client is declined with a documented reason.
Try these tools to assess and improve your operations.
Yes. SwiftCase searches across all matters — open, closed, and archived — ensuring historical conflicts are identified even when the original files have been stored away.
The search algorithm accounts for common name variations, phonetic similarities, abbreviations, and known aliases, significantly reducing the chance of a missed conflict compared to simple keyword matching.
Yes. Role-based access controls allow you to restrict who can initiate searches, who can view results, and who has authority to resolve and sign off on flagged conflicts.
You can configure SwiftCase to enforce a conflict check as a mandatory gate in the intake workflow, preventing matter creation until the check is completed and signed off.
Fuzzy matching, full-history search, and a defensible audit trail — see how SwiftCase eliminates conflict-of-interest risk.
