Running a conflict check in Clio, closed files included.

Why the quick version fails

A conflict check at a small firm is usually one person typing one name into Clio's search box. That finds the obvious case, a current client on the other side, and misses three others. The would-be client's opponent, who is not searched at all because the intake form only asked for the client. The closed file, filtered out of the default view. And the name that does not match because it was entered as "Robert Johnson" and the new client wrote "Bob Johnson".

None of this is a Clio problem. Clio has the data. It is a thoroughness problem, and thoroughness at four in the afternoon is exactly what software is for. The rules of professional conduct do not care that the search was quick; they care whether the firm knew what it already had on file.

What a complete check looks like

"Run a conflict check on Maria Alvarez and Northside Insurance." The assistant takes every name you give it, the would-be client, the other side, anyone else involved, and searches Clio for each one: the contacts list, and the matters, including closed ones. For every contact it finds, it then looks up every matter that person or company is on, as the client or in any other role. What comes back is one table: the name you gave, who matched in Clio, and which files they are on, with each file's status and the role the firm recorded. "Client on 00012-Smith, closed 2024." "Opposing party on 00031-Doe, open."

If you give it one name and a matter type, it asks once for the other side before searching, because a check on the client alone is half a check. If that is all you have, it runs on that and says so. To help with spellings it searches the surname on its own as well as the full name, so "Johnson" surfaces the Robert when you typed Bob. Give it every spelling you know; the search is only as wide as the names it has.

What it never says

It never says "no conflict". It says what it searched and what matched, and the decision stays with you. That wording is deliberate. A search with no hits means Clio holds nothing under those names; it does not mean the firm is clear. And a hit is a prompt to look, not a finding: two contacts with the same name may be one person entered twice, or two people. Whether something is a conflict under the rules is a legal judgment, and the assistant does not offer an opinion on it.

It only sees Clio. Paper files, the system the firm used before Clio, and a colleague's memory are not in it, which is why the table is a starting point for the question "does anyone here know these people?" rather than the end of it. It matches names, not people, so a maiden name or a company's trading name can still slip past. And it does not open the matter: that is a separate step with its own "show me first, then yes", exactly like every other write it makes.

Where it runs on its own

"Have we ever had anything with the Delgados?" is the same search with a different purpose, and it works the same way: every spelling you give it, contacts and matters, closed files included, one table. The check is also the first thing the assistant does whenever you ask it to open a matter for a new person, and it tells you it did. Matter intake starts with the conflict table, on every name, before the contact and the matter are proposed, so the check cannot be the step that gets skipped because the engagement letter has already come back signed. A paralegal opening the file sees the same table an attorney would.

Three minutes on a Tuesday

A referral comes in: a homeowner against a contractor. "Run a conflict check on Dana Whitfield and Ridgeline Builders." The table shows Whitfield with no matches, Ridgeline Builders as the opposing party on a closed 2023 matter, and a "Ridgeline Construction LLC" contact on no matters at all. You look at the closed file, decide the two Ridgelines are the same outfit, and take the case knowing what the firm already knows about them. Or you decline it. Either way the decision was made with the whole file in view, and it took less time than the phone call did.

MG Legal Ops runs on each attorney's own computer, on their own Clio and Microsoft 365 logins, through Claude Code; the confidentiality page says what that means. The conflict check guide is the full description. Pricing, and the fourteen-day trial, no card to start.

Also read: What a paralegal can hand to an assistant and Claude Code for law firms. All articles.