An SRA conflict of interest check helps a firm decide whether it can accept an instruction and continue acting as the matter develops. It combines a search of the firm's records with professional judgment about interests, duties and confidential information. A software result alone does not authorise the firm to act.
This guide explains the distinction between current-client conflicts and former-client confidentiality, then gives a practical intake and decision checklist for firms in England and Wales. It also explains what Writford's conflict screen does and where the solicitor must investigate further.
The SRA framework: three different questions
The SRA conflicts guidance distinguishes own interests, conflicting duties to current or prospective clients, and confidential information held about former clients. Those questions need separate analysis.
Own interests. You must not act where your own interests conflict with the client's interests, or there is a significant risk of that happening. Client consent does not remove that prohibition.
Current or prospective clients. A conflict can arise when duties to clients in the same or a related matter conflict. The two limited exceptions concern a substantially common interest or competition for the same objective. Informed consent must be given or evidenced in writing, appropriate confidentiality safeguards must be in place, and acting for all clients must be reasonable. Consent by itself is insufficient.
Former clients. Previously acting for someone does not automatically prohibit acting against them. The SRA Code of Conduct separately addresses adverse interests where the firm holds confidential information material to the new matter. Assess that information, the disclosure duties and the applicable safeguards or consent conditions before deciding whether you can act.
Read the primary sources for the full conditions. A name match is a reason to investigate the relationship, not a substitute for applying them to the facts.
Start with the parties and the instruction
Record the proposed client's identity and the work requested before searching. Include the other side, relevant companies, previous or trading names, and connected people whose involvement could matter. Where available, company numbers and contact details can help distinguish people or businesses with similar names.
Ask who is actually instructing the firm. A director, shareholder, company and group of companies are not interchangeable clients. Record the intended client clearly rather than assuming the person who first contacted the firm represents everyone involved.
For example, a company asks the firm to advise on a shareholder dispute. An existing file names an individual with the same surname as the new contact. The next step is to establish who that person is, whom the firm represented, what the earlier work involved and whether it connects to the proposed dispute. The surname alone cannot answer those questions.
Search the records you actually hold
Use a repeatable search procedure that covers relevant client and matter records, including closed work and names recorded at earlier enquiries. Search known name variations and check identifiers before dismissing a near match. A narrow search of active matter titles may miss a party named elsewhere in the records.
Record the scope as well as the result. If a record collection is incomplete, an import has not finished, or a software screen reports incomplete coverage, the absence of matches should not be treated as clearance. Complete the missing checks or escalate the limitation before accepting the instruction.
For a lateral hire, agree a lawful and confidential way to identify relevant earlier relationships. Do not import another firm's client files or confidential material simply to expand the search. Information about personal or financial interests also needs to be raised through the firm's process, because it may not appear in a client database.
Review every relevant match
For each possible match, establish the identity, relationship, current or former status, matters involved and information the firm holds. Speak to the colleague responsible for the existing file where appropriate. Limit access to confidential details to those who need them for the assessment.
Some results will be mistaken identity. Others will identify an existing client on an unrelated instruction, a former client with relevant confidential information, or opposing parties in related work. Record why the result does or does not prevent acting. If the facts remain uncertain, refer the decision through the firm's compliance procedure before proceeding.
Useful questions for the decision record include:
- Which identities and relationships were confirmed?
- What work does the firm currently do for each relevant client?
- Does the firm hold confidential information material to the proposed instruction?
- Is there a personal or financial interest outside the searchable records?
- What further facts, safeguards or decisions are required?
Keep a decision record that someone else can understand
A useful record names the parties searched, the records covered, when the search happened, who assessed the findings and the reasons for the decision. If the firm relies on an exception, keep the supporting assessment, written consent evidence and relevant safeguards with the file.
Avoid a bare note saying "check done, OK". A colleague taking over the matter should be able to understand what was assessed and what conditions must continue to hold. Restrict access to the record where its contents themselves reveal confidential information.
Repeat the assessment when facts change. New parties, a changed instruction or a newly discovered relationship can make the original decision incomplete. Build those prompts into the firm's matter-opening and review procedures rather than relying on the initial search indefinitely.
What Writford's conflict screen does
Writford automatically attempts a firm-scoped conflict screen when a matter is created and when relevant parties change. The automatic screen uses deterministic matching, including exact and close name matches, email addresses and company numbers where recorded. It stores findings and coverage information for the matter. The separate manual check can use AI to assess borderline matches; AI cannot clear a finding.
The screen relies on parties and identifiers recorded in Writford. It does not guarantee discovery of an unrecorded corporate relationship, a colleague's personal interest or every prior relationship of a lateral hire. It reports scan coverage, which must be checked before relying on an empty result. An automatic-check failure does not prevent matter creation, so confirm that a current check exists and review its findings.
The solicitor decides whether the firm can act and records that decision. Writford's conflict-check workflow supports that record alongside matter management. It does not provide regulatory approval or replace the firm's investigation and supervision.
A practical intake checklist
Before accepting the instruction, identify the intended client and relevant parties, search the records, investigate matches and missing coverage, and record the decision. If further approval, evidence or safeguards are needed, keep the matter at that decision point until they are resolved.
When the matter changes, update the parties and repeat the relevant assessment. Keep the reasons and any continuing conditions visible to the people handling the file. That gives the firm a process it can explain, rather than an assumption that a software label settled the question.
Sources checked by Writford Team on 6 October 2026.