The phone rang in the New York office about six hours before it rang in Chicago. Litigation attorneys in both offices were eager to talk to a new very large potential client. Both were able to gather enough facts to start a new matter intake form with basic conflict search criteria and assured the client that they should be able to respond in a day or two. The client was eager to get things rolling and time was critical. Luckily the firm had excellent procedures in place and highly qualified paralegals ran the conflict searches in both offices, they were free and clear, no issues whatsoever.
We have a new client! Like clockwork, engagement letters went out to each of the inquirers and work had already begun. It wasn’t until the Friday “new client/matter” report came out to the partners that the discovery was made, it was the same client. Obviously the client had internal issues with more than one contact seeking legal assistance, but nonetheless, the firm too was embarrassed. Could it have been much worse, sure … the firm could have been representing multiple opposing parties in a complex matter.
So, how do you know in a multi-office, distributed environment if the firm isn’t talking to the same or opposing parties on a conflicting matter that surface in a short period of time? The answer is to structure your conflict search system to not just search on the normal stuff, but to also search on “ searches.” If the system allowed the search on searches capability, the second occurrence would have immediately caught the first search and pending engagement, allowing one of the two attorneys to inform the client of the situation. The client would have been impressed with the level of communication within the firm even between remote locations.
Searching previous searches also provides another valuable business tool, why was past representation turned down? In most systems there is probably no record of past declined opportunities and the reason they were declined. Many declines for representation are not legal conflict issues, they are business issues. Without a well constructed database and proceedure to providing the reason for declining an engagement and the ability to find all this on a conflicts search what we declined yesterday, might be accepted today.
Searching on searches is a Best Practice for all law firms.
