The operating problem
A no-match result does not establish the absence of a conflict. Searches can miss aliases, related entities, and incomplete records. Make the system useful by exposing search coverage and missing information to the reviewer.
Use your own working copy
The free workbook for this process opens in a browser and works offline after download. It includes editable checks and notes, a text export, and a print view. It is a planning resource: it does not send messages, read account data, or run actions in business systems. No vendor account is needed to use the workbook.
Map the process
1. Collect minimal inquiry data
Ask for contact details, party names, and a high-level matter category. Warn against submitting confidential narrative or files before the firm requests them.
2. Normalize party names
Preserve the original spelling alongside normalized search terms. Include aliases and related entities provided by the prospect.
3. Search the approved records
Query the permitted matter/contact sources using the correct region and access scope. Track unavailable sources and pagination.
4. Create a conflict review
Present matches, search terms, missing fields, and coverage limitations. Do not label fuzzy matching as conflict clearance.
5. Release the next step
Only the authorized acceptance decision can open onboarding. A neutral receipt acknowledgement must not imply an attorney-client relationship.
Information to check
These reference fields describe the process. Use invented values while planning. Keep real records in an appropriate private system; the public website does not need them.
| Reference field | Working record | Check before progressing |
|---|---|---|
| inquiry_id | intake_key | Stable deduplication key |
| party_names | search_terms | Preserve original and normalized values |
| related_entities | additional_search | Reviewer checks coverage |
| review_decision | acceptance_state | Authorized reviewer only |
| source_region | api_base | Use the correct data region |
Acceptance checks
- An API timeout blocks clearance and creates an exception.
- A common-name match is reviewed rather than rejected automatically.
- A missing party name prevents a complete search.
- An inquiry cannot open an engagement without acceptance.
Walk through a successful example, a duplicate, a missing item, an incorrect match, and an interrupted handoff with synthetic records. Record the expected result, observed result, owner, and recovery action. Checklists record your work; checking a box does not establish that an external action happened.
Ownership and review
Name the person responsible for the process and the person who can resolve an exception. Define which decisions require qualified professional review. Use stable references, limit access to private records, and document when work must stop. Educational material does not establish legal, accounting, tax, security, or regulatory compliance.
Run a measured pilot
Choose a small, reversible sample. Measure handling time, waiting time, review, rework, and errors before changing the process. Include the effort of maintaining the new method. Expand only when the observed result meets your acceptance criteria; a longer checklist is not proof of improved performance.
Use the free workflow planner to define your next step, or compare the assumptions in the opportunity calculator.