Conflict Check and Waiver Pack
Three documents and two sheets that sort every hit by which rule disqualifies it, before anyone drafts a wall or a waiver.
Free download · No account needed
Party and Relationship Register · 63 former matters x 447-entry index, three hits that did not clear
Same word, “conflict,” three different cures
A screen is not the universal fix. It is only available for two of these three, and the register has to say which before anyone drafts anything.
| Party | What actually connects them | Rule category | Screen available |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corvale Metals Inc. | Lateral partner personally represented them, same case now adverse | RPC 1.9(a), personal | Yes, for the rest of the firm |
| Tarrow Foods Ltd. | Lateral partner supervised the matter, never appeared on it | RPC 1.9(b), imputed knowledge | Yes |
| Halvorsee Retail Group v. Renmark | New client's matter is adverse to a current client; no lateral involved | RPC 1.7(a), concurrent | No, not eligible |
The third row is not a worse version of the first two
It never qualified for a screen at all. RPC 1.10(e) opens the screening cure only for a disqualification that arises from a lawyer's own association with a prior firm. Row three has nothing to do with any lawyer's history; the firm is simply already adverse to the party being asked for. No wall reaches it, however it is built.
Rows one and two still needed the wall proven, not just built: system access went live 55 hours before the screen did, and the file's own access log is what shows nothing crossed that gap.
A hit on a conflict check is a match, not a conclusion. This pack sorts each one by the rule that disqualifies it: a lawyer's own personal conflict in a related matter, knowledge imputed from a former firm, or a plain conflict against a current client with no lawyer history at all. Only the first two can be screened; RPC 1.10(e) opens that cure only for a disqualification tied to a prior firm, so the third goes straight to consent. This is the deeper half of stage one's conflict search.
Where a screen applies, the rule's third condition is a timing test: convincing evidence that nothing material moved before the screen was actually implemented, not a memo asserting it. A new lawyer's system access is usually provisioned the day they start. A conflicts register that takes two or three days to finalize means the wall goes live after access, not before. The document management system's own log for that exact gap is the evidence the rule asks for, alongside the specific dollar figure zeroed out of the lawyer's compensation run.
Where no screen was ever available, or the timing cannot be shown clean, the fallback is the affected client's informed consent. Test whatever the client already signed before drafting anything new. Comment 22 to RPC 1.7 measures an advance waiver by how specifically it named the type of future matter at the time it was signed. An open-ended waiver written for one purpose routinely fails to cover a different one later. Once a matter clears, pricing it is the next pack's job, not this one's.
What's in the pack
Party and Relationship Register
Every cross-referenced party sorted by what actually connects them and by which rule category the hit falls under, cleared rows included with their reason.
Conflict Analysis Memo
One entry per flagged row naming the specific rule that disqualifies it and whether a screen is even available before recommending anything.
Ethical Wall Procedure
What is actually restricted, who enforces it, and the timeline from system access to wall implementation that a later inquiry will ask about.
Screening Log
The exposure window computed in hours, the access-log result for that window, and the specific fee credit zeroed out of the screened lawyer's compensation.
Waiver Letter
Parties, the specific conflict, concrete risks and the right to decline, with any advance waiver already on file tested before it is relied on.
How to use it
- 1
Open in River, or take it blank
Open the pack in River and hand it the party list and, if this is a lateral hire, their prior-firm docket, or download the Word documents and CSV sheets from the template library and run it yourself.
- 2
Cross-reference, then sort by rule, not by result
Match every party against your current and recent clients first, then sort each real hit into personal, imputed-knowledge, or concurrent, because that decides everything after it.
- 3
Screen what qualifies, and log the timing as it happens
Open the log the moment a screen is triggered, not once the wall is finished, so the exposure window is a fact you recorded rather than one you reconstruct later.
- 4
Waive what does not, testing any old consent first
Before drafting a new letter, check whether an existing advance waiver actually named this type of matter. If it did not, write a new one.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes, no account or card required. The download is Word documents and CSV sheets in a zip. Edit with AI is the second half: the agent runs the cross-reference, sorts each hit by rule, and drafts whichever of the wall or the waiver actually applies.
What am I actually downloading?
Three Word documents and two CSV sheets, zipped. The sheets open in Excel, Numbers or Google Sheets straight off the download, and the memo, procedure and letter open in Word or Pages. Nothing in the zip needs River to be useful.
Can a screen cover a conflict against our own current client?
No. RPC 1.10(e) opens the screening cure only for a disqualification arising from a lawyer's own association with a prior firm. A conflict against a client the firm already represents is a concurrent conflict under RPC 1.7, and the only cure available is that client's informed consent, confirmed in writing.
How fast does the ethical wall actually need to go up?
Before the gap between system access and the wall can be shown clean, not by a fixed number of hours. The log records exactly when access was granted, when the wall went live, and what the file's own access log shows for the interval between them, since that is the evidence a later inquiry will ask for.
What if the affected client already signed a conflicts waiver years ago?
Test it before relying on it. Comment 22 to RPC 1.7 measures an advance waiver by how specifically it named the type of future matter and its consequences at the time. One written for litigation rarely covers a transactional matter later, and a waiver too general to have been understood is not a waiver at all.
Does it decide whether the conflict can be waived at all?
It flags the one configuration that cannot be: representation that would assert one client's claim directly against another client of the firm in the same litigation or proceeding. RPC 1.7(b)(3) bars that outright, no matter how the waiver is worded, and the memo stops there rather than drafting around it.
How does this fit with the other legal packs?
This one covers what happens once a hit comes back, screen or waiver. It sits alongside the intake sequence that runs the first search, and a cleared matter moves on to a budget priced from your own closed matters and, once running, guideline compliance for the team. Every deadline the matter now carries gets tracked against the rule that actually set it.
Sort the hit before you draft anything
Take the Word documents and CSV sheets blank, or open this exact pack in River and hand it your party list.
Edit with AI