Yes, UK solicitors must run a conflict of interest check before opening every new matter. SRA Code paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 require you to identify own-interest and client-against-client conflicts across all parties, current and former, then document the result. Writford runs this check automatically when you open a matter.
Every UK solicitor knows they must run a conflict of interest check before opening a new matter. Most do. The problem is not intent, it is method. A name search in a spreadsheet, a quick scan of memory, a verbal ask around the office: these are the processes most small and mid-size firms still rely on, and they are materially unreliable in ways that create real regulatory exposure.
This guide sets out what the SRA Code actually requires, where manual processes consistently fail, and what an AI-assisted conflict check does differently.
What the SRA Code of Conduct Requires
The SRA updated its guidance on conflicts of interest on 11 April 2025. The obligations sit in two places: the Code of Conduct for Solicitors (individual obligations) and the Code of Conduct for Firms (firm-level systems obligations).
Paragraph 6.1: Own-Interest Conflicts (No Exceptions)
Paragraph 6.1 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors states that you must not act if there is an own-interest conflict or a significant risk of one. An own-interest conflict arises where your interests, or those of someone connected to you, conflict or risk conflicting with a client's interests. There are no exceptions. You cannot obtain client consent and continue. You must decline.
Common own-interest conflict situations include: acting for a client in a dispute where your firm holds a financial interest in the outcome; acting for a client where a fee earner at your firm has a personal relationship with the opposing party; and acting where the firm itself is a party to the transaction.
Paragraph 6.2: Client-Against-Client Conflicts (Two Narrow Exceptions)
Paragraph 6.2 covers situations where two or more clients have interests that directly conflict. The default position is that you must not act for both. There are two exceptions where a solicitor may continue to act, provided all clients give informed consent in writing, effective safeguards protect each client's confidential information, and it is reasonable to act for all of them: where the clients have a substantially common interest in the matter, or where the clients are competing for the same objective.
These exceptions are narrow and should not be treated as a general escape hatch. Acting under the exceptions without genuine informed written consent is a Code breach.
The Firms Code: Adequate Systems
The Code of Conduct for Firms adds a further layer. The firm itself must have adequate systems and controls to enable it to identify and assess potential conflicts of interest. This is the COLP's accountability zone. A sole practitioner who relies entirely on personal memory is not running an adequate system. A three-partner firm with a shared spreadsheet that only one partner updates is not running an adequate system.
What counts as adequate? The SRA has not defined the term precisely, but enforcement decisions and guidance notes point to three requirements: the system must search comprehensively (not just current active matters), produce a documented result, and run consistently, meaning it is not optional or effort-dependent.
Why Manual Conflict Checks Fail
Most small and mid-size UK law firms run conflict checks in one of three ways: searching a practice management system by client name, searching a spreadsheet, or asking around the office. Each of these fails in predictable patterns.
Name variation. A client named "Martin J Smith" may appear in your records as "M Smith", "Martin Smith", "M J Smith", "Smith Martin" or "Smithson" (a data entry error from five years ago). An exact-name search misses all variants except one. A human scanning a list may or may not notice the others.
Corporate hierarchy. A conflict search that finds the individual but not their company, or finds the company but not its parent or subsidiaries, will miss connections that matter. If you act for a FTSE 250 subsidiary in a dispute and the opposing party turns out to be another subsidiary of the same parent, that is a paragraph 6.2 conflict you need to have checked for.
Former matters and closed files. Firms that search only active matters miss the archive entirely. A client you acted for in a conveyancing matter eight years ago, and whose buyer you are now being asked to act against, is still a former client, and the paragraph 6.2 analysis still applies.
Lateral hires. A fee earner joining from another firm brings their own conflict history with them. If your firm searches its own database but not the conflicts history the lateral inherited, and that lateral then opens a matter against a former client of theirs, the firm has a problem the search would have caught with one additional data point.
Recency bias. The most common failure is not systematic at all: the fee earner simply forgets to run the check in the first place, or runs it for one party but not all parties. Manual processes are dependent on human memory and habit. They fail most often under time pressure, precisely the conditions under which new matters are opened.
What AI-Assisted Conflict Checking Does Differently
An AI-assisted conflict check, integrated into your practice management system, addresses all five failure modes above.
Fuzzy matching. Rather than searching for an exact string, AI conflict checking applies fuzzy name matching, it will catch "M J Smith", "M. Smith", "Smithon" (a typo), and close transliterations of names. The matching threshold is configurable so you see near-matches flagged for human review, not just discarded.
Entity resolution. The system maps individuals to corporate structures. If you have a company in your database, the conflict check can flag its known directors and associated individuals, and flag associated entities when an individual appears. This does not require you to have manually created every relationship: it can infer connections from matter records and known corporate relationships.
Full database search. The check runs against all matters simultaneously, active, closed, and archived, not just the ones currently open. You do not need to remember to check old files.
Consistent execution. The check runs every time a matter is opened, regardless of who opens it, how busy the office is, or whether the fee earner remembers. It is not effort-dependent.
Lateral conflict integration. When a fee earner joins the firm and their prior matters are loaded, the conflict check immediately applies to all future new matters, not just matters opened after some manual update to a spreadsheet.
The Audit Trail the SRA Expects
One aspect of conflict checking that most guidance glosses over is documentation. Running a check is necessary. Being able to prove you ran it is equally necessary.
If a conflict complaint or PII claim arises, the first question any investigator or insurer will ask is: "Can you show me when the conflict check was run, what it found, and who reviewed the result?" A spreadsheet with no timestamp, or an email chain that was deleted, or a note that says "conflict check done, OK" with no supporting record, is a weak answer.
An AI-assisted system integrated with your practice management software produces a timestamped log stored against the matter record: who ran the check, when, which parties were searched, what results were flagged, and what the reviewing fee earner concluded. That record is automatically created as a by-product of doing the check, it requires no additional effort.
The Garfield.Law Signal
In May 2025, the SRA authorised Garfield.Law as the UK's first AI-driven law firm. Before granting authorisation, the SRA explicitly sought reassurance that "appropriate processes are in place to quality-check work, keep client information confidential, and safeguard against conflicts of interests." Conflict checking was not a peripheral concern in the authorisation process, it was one of three headline safeguards the SRA named publicly.
This signals that the SRA's view of adequate conflict systems is already being applied to AI-native firms, and that standard will not be lowered for traditional firms. If a firm whose entire operating model is AI had to demonstrate robust conflict safeguards to gain authorisation, firms that use AI tools alongside traditional practice should be examining whether their conflict systems meet the same standard.
Step-by-Step: Running a Compliant Conflict Check
A compliant conflict check covers these steps every time a new matter is opened:
Step 1, Capture all party names at intake. Before running any search: the client's full name and any associated entities; all opposing parties; any key individuals named in the matter (beneficiaries, directors, guarantors); and any related individuals connected to the fee earner handling the matter.
Step 2, Search the full firm database. Run the search against active matters, closed matters, former clients from consultations, and any lateral-hire conflict histories loaded into the system.
Step 3, Review AI-flagged results, not just exact matches. Near-matches need human review, not automatic dismissal. A name that is 85% similar to a former client's name warrants a second look.
Step 4, Apply the paragraph 6.1 / 6.2 test to any potential hit. For each flagged result: is this an own-interest conflict (paragraph 6.1, no exceptions) or a client-against-client conflict (paragraph 6.2, two narrow exceptions)? If either test is triggered, the matter must be declined or referred to the COLP before proceeding.
Step 5, Document the outcome. Record who ran the check, when, what was searched, and what the result was, stored against the matter record with a timestamp.
Step 6, Repeat at every significant change. A conflict check run on day one of a matter does not remain valid indefinitely. New parties being added, opposing solicitors changing, and laterals joining the firm are all trigger points for a repeat check.
Professional Indemnity Insurance
Acting in a conflict situation is one of the most frequent triggers for PII claims in the UK legal market. The SRA Minimum Terms and Conditions require your insurer to cover claims arising from your having acted in a conflict, but that coverage is remedial, not preventive. Repeated conflict failures make renewal harder and can push premiums upward at renewal. The insurers who underwrite legal PI have detailed claims data on this, and manual conflict processes are a known risk factor.
A documented, consistent conflict check process, one that produces a timestamped audit trail for every matter, is the kind of operational evidence that demonstrates to insurers (and to the SRA, if asked) that your firm takes this obligation seriously.
Summary
The SRA obligation is clear and has no soft edges: run a conflict check before opening every matter, cover all parties, document the result. Manual processes fail on name variation, corporate hierarchy, archive coverage, and consistency. An AI-assisted check built into your practice management system closes all four gaps and produces the audit trail automatically.
Writford runs a conflict check automatically when you open a new matter, searches your full client and matter history, flags near-matches for review, and logs the result against the matter record with a timestamp. The COLP does not need to rely on individual fee earners remembering, it is part of the matter creation workflow by default.