Overview
When a provider offers conflict screening, clarify the exact task: collecting identifiers, searching an approved system, flagging possible matches, or routing a result for review. Those are different deliverables. This guide proposes a handoff specification for the firm to approve; it does not describe a verified AnSer configuration.
Set the delegated scope before selecting fields
The ABA’s summary of Formal Opinion 506 recognizes that trained intake personnel may perform conflict checks under appropriate policies, training, and supervision. Do not assume either that every answering provider performs this work or that nonlawyers are categorically forbidden from doing it. Have the supervising attorney identify what may be delegated under the rules applicable to the firm.
Write down which system may be used, the permitted search steps, and the person responsible for interpreting uncertain results. A provider’s general legal-intake claim is not evidence that these operations are configured.
Approve the collection boundary
Comment 4 to ABA Model Rule 1.18 discusses limiting an initial consultation to information reasonably necessary to decide whether to undertake the matter. Model rules are not a substitute for the firm’s applicable jurisdictional rules. The responsible attorney should determine the collection limit and caller-facing wording.
- List each approved identifying field and its purpose; distinguish required information from optional narrative.
- Specify what the agent should do when the caller cannot identify another party or begins providing details beyond the approved intake scope.
- Identify the authorized recipient for information already received; do not create an automatic deletion or broad forwarding rule without the firm’s approval.
Separate receipt, search results, and authorization
Use explicit workflow labels in the handoff specification. “Received” should mean the message arrived. “Search completed” should identify the approved operation performed. Neither label should silently become “matter accepted.” These are suggested workflow distinctions, not prescribed software features.
Specify who can authorize the next intake step and how that authorization reaches the answering team. Define the permitted response while review is pending, including when the designated reviewer is unavailable after hours. Do not substitute an empty search result for that authorization.
Check the actual software permissions and rerun behavior
For a concrete example, Clio documents that administrators and General Access users can run conflict checks by default, with custom roles controlling access. Its generated results cannot be edited: changing the search requires duplicating and rerunning the check. Clio also documents automatic closure after three days. These are software behaviors, not evidence that AnSer has access to a firm’s account.
If your firm uses Clio, have its administrator demonstrate the permitted role with test data. Assign an owner for corrected identifiers and pending checks, and specify how a replacement report is linked to the original intake. Treat automatic closure as a software state, not the firm’s decision to accept a matter. Confirm the current behavior in your account before approving the handoff.
Demonstrate the unresolved paths
Use firm-authorized test records without real prospective-client information. Request the resulting message and system outcome for each test, rather than accepting a verbal assurance.
- Incomplete identifiers: show how missing information is marked and routed.
- Possible match: show the review destination and the caller response; confirm that uncertainty is not presented as clearance.
- System unavailable: show how a failed search remains distinguishable from a completed search.
- No reviewer response: show the agreed fallback and pending owner without promising representation or a callback deadline the firm has not approved.
Retain a reviewable handoff specification
Record the approved field list, script version, delegated search steps, pending-review destination, authorization method, and failed-test corrections together. Assign a firm owner to recheck them when the provider, software, or practice scope changes.
Keep the vendor evaluation focused: ask it to demonstrate this specification and identify unsupported steps. This separates a usable supervised workflow from a feature label without claiming that any checklist guarantees legal compliance.
