Free tool · Runs in your browser
Find the conflicts
a name search misses.
Paste the parties to a new inquiry and your firm's client and adverse party list. The check finds the matches an exact search misses, says why each one matched, and sorts them the way a conflicts review does. Nothing you enter leaves your browser.
Run the conflict check
Runs entirely in your browser. The names you enter or load are never uploaded, sent or stored, and they are gone when you close the tab.
One name per line. Start each line with a role: Prospect, Prospect affiliate, Opposing, Opposing affiliate or Other.
CSV or pasted from Excel: name, role, matter, status, note. Roles: client, former client, adverse party, prospective client, related, other. A blank status counts as open.
Showing the sample list. Files are read by your browser, not uploaded.
Lower finds more names, and more false alarms. Exact text hits always show.
3 to stop, 5 to review, 1 clear at 82%. An exact text search would have found 1 of 8 hits.
- Stop, partner review
- 3
- Possible match, review
- 5
- Clear
- 1
An exact text search would have found 1 of 8 hits. The other 7 only surface once legal forms, abbreviations, nicknames, spelling and word order are normalized.
Stop, partner review
3A conflict on its face: the firm is adverse to this name in an open matter, or a current client is on the other side. Nobody discusses the matter until a partner decides.
- Stop100% match
Inquiry · Prospect's affiliate
Brightwater Freight Services, Inc.
Your list · Adverse party, matter 2026-0031, open
Brightwater Freight Svcs., Inc.
The firm is adverse to this name in open matter 2026-0031, and it sits in the prospect's group. Not automatically a conflict, but a partner should decide before anyone talks to the prospect.
Why it matched: Read 'Svcs' as 'Services'.
An exact text search misses this one.
- Stop100% match
Inquiry · Opposing party
Kessler Mfg. Co.
Your list · Client, matter 2025-0142, open
Kessler Manufacturing Company
A current client (matter 2025-0142) is on the other side. Acting against a current client is directly adverse under Rule 1.7(a)(1).
Why it matched: Removed 'Co.' and 'Company'; read 'Mfg' as 'Manufacturing'.
An exact text search misses this one.
- Stop85% match
Inquiry · Opposing party's affiliate
Kessler Holdings, Inc.
Your list · Client, matter 2025-0142, open
Kessler Manufacturing Company
A current client (matter 2025-0142) is related to the other side. Under Comment [34] to Rule 1.7 an affiliate is not necessarily a client, but a partner should confirm.
Why it matched: Removed 'Inc.' and 'Company'; differs in 'Holdings': possibly a parent, subsidiary or sister company; no counterpart for 'Manufacturing'.
An exact text search misses this one.
Possible match, conflicts review
5A name on your list that may be the same person or company. The conflicts person compares the records and clears or escalates each one.
- Review100% match
Inquiry · Opposing party's affiliate
Kessler Holdings, Inc.
Your list · Related party, matter 2025-0142
Kessler Holding LLC
On the list as a related party (matter 2025-0142). The list notes: Parent of Kessler Manufacturing Company (client).
Why it matched: Removed 'Inc.' and 'LLC'.
An exact text search misses this one.
- Review100% match
Inquiry · Other party
Northgate Mutual Insurance
Your list · Former client, matter 2021-0150
Northgate Mutual Insurance Company
On the list as a former client (matter 2021-0150). This party has no side set, so the hit cannot be ranked: add a role to the line.
Why it matched: Removed 'Company'.
An exact text search finds this one too.
- Review97% match
Inquiry · Opposing party
Dana Whitcomb
Your list · Prospective client, not retained, matter P-2025-0218
Whitcombe, Dana
Consulted the firm before without retaining it (matter P-2025-0218). Under Rule 1.18 that can disqualify the lawyer who heard them if the matters are substantially related and what they said could significantly harm them now. The list notes: Consultation in 2025; not retained.
Why it matched: 'Whitcomb' and 'Whitcombe' differ in spelling (93% alike); reordered the words.
An exact text search misses this one.
- Review93% match
Inquiry · Opposing party
Bob Halloran
Your list · Former client, matter 2019-0077
Halloran, Robert J.
A former client (matter 2019-0077) is on the other side. Rule 1.9 applies if this matter is the same as or substantially related to the earlier one. The list notes: Estate planning.
Why it matched: 'Bob' and 'Robert' are the same first name; reordered the words; no counterpart for 'J'.
An exact text search misses this one.
- Review85% match
Inquiry · Opposing party
Kessler Mfg. Co.
Your list · Related party, matter 2025-0142
Kessler Holding LLC
On the list as a related party (matter 2025-0142). The list notes: Parent of Kessler Manufacturing Company (client).
Why it matched: Removed 'Co.' and 'LLC'; differs in 'Holding': possibly a parent, subsidiary or sister company; no counterpart for 'Mfg'.
An exact text search misses this one.
Clear at 82%
1No name on your list reaches the threshold. The closest one is shown so the near misses are visible too.
- Brightwater Logistics, LLC Prospective clientClosest: Brightwater Freight Svcs., Inc., 57%
A screening aid, not legal advice, and not a replacement for your firm's conflicts system. It compares names only: it knows a corporate family only as far as your list records related parties. A person reviews every hit and records who cleared it.
Why the check comes before the callback
Under ABA Model Rule 1.18, anyone who consults a lawyer about possibly forming a client-lawyer relationship is a prospective client, and even if the firm never takes the case, the lawyer may not use or reveal what they learned except as Rule 1.9 allows for former clients. If that information could be significantly harmful to the prospect, the lawyer cannot act against them in the same or a substantially related matter, and no one else in the firm may knowingly take it on either. The exceptions are informed written consent from both sides, or screening: the lawyer took reasonable measures not to hear more than was needed to decide, is screened in time, takes no part of the fee, and the prospect gets prompt written notice.
ABA Formal Opinion 510 (March 2024) spells out those reasonable measures: ask only for what is reasonably necessary to decide whether to take the matter, which includes whether a conflict of interest exists, and tell the prospect at the start not to volunteer more. In practice that means names first, story later.
The other side of the check is the firm's own clients. Rule 1.7 makes a representation directly adverse to a current client a conflict of interest, waivable only under strict conditions that include each client's informed consent in writing; Rule 1.9 protects former clients in the same or substantially related matters; and Rule 1.10 imputes most of one lawyer's conflicts under those two rules to every lawyer in the firm. The comment to Rule 1.7 asks for reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm, to identify the persons and issues involved, and says ignorance caused by a failure to institute them will not excuse a violation. A search that misses "Kessler Mfg. Co." because the client is filed as "Kessler Manufacturing Company" is the gap this page shows.
These are the ABA Model Rules. Each state adopts its own version, so check your jurisdiction's rule before relying on any of this. Nothing on this page is legal advice.
How the matching works
Every name is normalized, compared word by word with the best partner on the other side, and scored. Each step that changed the result is recorded, which is where the "why it matched" line on every hit comes from. The same input always gives the same ranking.
Legal forms
Inc., LLC, L.L.C., LLP, PLLC, P.C., Corp., Co., Ltd., GmbH, AG, S.A. and B.V. come off the end of a name before it is compared.
Abbreviations
Mfg, Intl, Svcs, Natl, Mgmt and St. are read as the words they stand for, and '&' as 'and'.
People
'Halloran, Robert J.' and 'Bob Halloran' meet: word order, initials and common nicknames are handled.
Spelling
Close spellings are scored with Jaro-Winkler and checked by edit distance, so 'Whitcombe' finds 'Whitcomb' and 'Smithers' does not find 'Smith'.
Corporate family words
Holding, Group, USA and Jr. are set aside, then flagged: 'Kessler Holding' and 'Kessler Manufacturing' are often parent and subsidiary.
Common words count half
'Brightwater Logistics' and 'Brightline Logistics' share only a generic word, so they stay clear. Names after d/b/a or f/k/a are checked too.
What the full version does
This page does one step, by hand. In the intake workflow I build for law firms, it runs on every inquiry by itself:
- 1Inquiries from the web form, chat, email and voicemail are captured around the clock by an assistant that says it is an AI and asks for names, not the story.
- 2A model extracts the intake record: parties and their roles, the matter type, jurisdiction and key dates.
- 3The conflict search runs against your practice management data, in Clio, MyCase, PracticePanther, Filevine or Lawmatics, plus corporate family data for every company named, with thresholds your risk partner sets.
- 4The conflicts person clears each hit with the records side by side, and who cleared it is kept on the matter.
- 5A lawyer accepts or declines. Only then does anyone call the prospect back, with the engagement letter already drafted.
A build like this is usually a multi-step workflow: $15K - $30K, over 3-5 weeks. See ai workflow automation for what each tier includes.
FAQ
Is anything I enter sent to a server?
No. The matching code runs in your browser tab, and the names you type or load are never uploaded, sent or stored; they are gone when you close the tab. The site's analytics record visits, never what you enter. You can load the page, go offline, and the check still works.
Why run a conflict check before the first consultation?
Under ABA Model Rule 1.18, what a prospective client tells a lawyer can disqualify that lawyer, and through imputation the firm, from acting against them in a substantially related matter, even if the firm never takes the case. ABA Formal Opinion 510 says the lawyer should ask only for what is reasonably necessary to decide whether to take the matter, which includes whether a conflict exists. Checking names first, before hearing the story, is the cleanest way to do that.
What threshold should a firm use?
The tool starts at 82%. A better answer comes from your own data: run a year of past intakes through your matching and lower the threshold until every conflict your team found by hand appears. Fuzzy matching is meant to produce some false alarms, because a person clears each one, while a missed conflict is the expensive mistake.
Does this replace the conflict search in our practice management system?
No. It is a free second look that shows what normalized matching finds and a plain name search misses. The record of the check, who cleared each hit and why, belongs in your conflicts system or the matter file; the CSV and text exports are there so you can attach the screen to it.
How do I get our names into it?
Export your contacts, matters or a conflicts report to CSV from your practice management system and keep four columns: name, role (client, former client, adverse party, related), matter number and status. Paste it or load the file. Columns pasted from Excel work as they are.