Structured subjects
Record clients, prospective clients, counterparties, witnesses, related entities, and other relevant subjects.
- People and organisations
- Roles and aliases
- Matter origin
Conflict Intelligence
Conflict Checking Software with Relationship Context and Human Review
Search people, organisations, matters, roles, and recorded relationships, then route potential matches for authorised professional judgment before opening or changing a matter.
Multi-party subjects Relationship context Review priority Recorded decisions
Conflict Workflow
Find relevant relationships without pretending every match is a conflict.
Conflict intelligence supports a professional decision; it does not replace the practitioner who must assess the facts and applicable duties.
Firm-wide search
Search authorised firm records for exact, similar, and relationship-based signals while preserving access boundaries.
- Name variants
- Existing matters
- Connected contacts
Prioritised review
Separate potential matches by status and review priority so reviewers can inspect the underlying context.
- Match evidence
- Review priority
- Assigned reviewer
Decision record
Record clearance, escalation, rejection, conditions, and the responsible person's reasoning where appropriate.
- Outcome status
- Reasoning evidence
- Audit trail
Review Path
Search broadly, assess carefully, decide explicitly.
The system should preserve the difference between a data match and a professional conflict decision.
Capture all relevant subjects
Identify the people, organisations, roles, aliases, and relationships known at intake.
Search authorised records
Compare subjects against the firm's permitted client, contact, matter, and relationship data.
Review potential matches
Inspect the source, relationship, timing, matter, and professional significance of each match.
Record the outcome
Clear, condition, escalate, or decline with the authorised reviewer and supporting evidence visible.
Professional Boundary
Conflict software should never promise a conflict-free result.
Data quality, scope, historical records, professional rules, waivers, confidentiality, and human judgment all affect the outcome.
A search cannot find identities, aliases, relationships, or matters that are missing, inaccessible, or incorrectly recorded.
A low match score or empty result does not itself authorise the firm to accept instructions.
Conflict review must preserve information barriers and access restrictions while providing enough evidence to decide.
New parties, ownership changes, staff moves, and expanded scope may require a fresh conflict review.
Conflict Intelligence FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Questions about data matches, professional judgment, confidentiality, rechecking, and decision records.
Does a potential match prove that a conflict exists?
No. A match is a signal for authorised review. The reviewer must assess identity, relationship, timing, scope, professional rules, and the relevant facts.
Does an empty search prove the matter is conflict-free?
No. Results depend on the subjects searched, data completeness, access, name quality, historical records, and the firm's review method.
Can conflict checks be run only once?
Not always. New parties, changed ownership, expanded instructions, staff moves, or new information can justify a fresh review.
Can every user see all conflict details?
Access should remain role- and record-aware. The system must balance sufficient review evidence with confidentiality and information barriers.
Does Lexuno make the final professional decision?
No. Lexuno supports search, review, status, and evidence. The authorised practitioner or firm decision-maker remains responsible.
Make conflict review systematic without automating professional judgment.
Explore Lexuno's conflict and matter workflows or discuss your firm's review model.