Any objections? Reply all.
A partner is about to accept a strategy engagement with a retailer. Before signing, the firm's process says to check for conflicts, so an email goes to all partners: 'Any issues with us working for this company?' Most do not reply. One mentions, a week later, that the firm did a pricing review for a direct competitor last year, and the contract included a restriction on working for competitors for a period.
By then the engagement letter is signed. Now the firm has an uncomfortable conversation to have.
Why conflict checks are weak
- Past engagements are recorded by client name, not by sector, group or competitor relationships.
- Restrictions agreed in past contracts are buried in the contract documents.
- Group structures mean a prospect may be related to a past client under a different name.
- The all-partner email relies on busy people reading and remembering.
- The outcome of the check is not recorded consistently.
Growth makes the problem harder. When a firm has a handful of partners, everyone knows the client list. As the firm grows and takes on associates, sector specialists and new offices, no single person holds the whole picture, and informal checks become unreliable.
What weak checks cost
| Gap | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Missed competitor engagement | Breach of a contractual restriction |
| Missed group relationship | Awkward conflict discovered mid-engagement |
| No recorded decision | Hard to show the check was made |
| Slow check | Engagement start delayed, prospect waits |
Trust is the product in consulting. A client that discovers you were quietly advising its main competitor may not come back.
It also slows good work down. When the check is informal, cautious partners hold off signing until they have chased enough colleagues, and prospects wait. A clear, quick check lets the firm say yes with confidence as well as say no when it should.
How we build conflict checking
- Your engagement history is loaded with client, group, sector, scope and dates, and restrictions from past contracts are extracted and recorded, with a person confirming each.
- A new prospect is checked by name and known group entities, using company registry data where available.
- The check searches past and current engagements, the pipeline and CRM relationships for the prospect, its group and firms you have recorded as its competitors.
- Possible issues are listed with the source: an engagement, a restriction, a relationship.
- Relevant partners, not all partners, are asked to review specific matches.
- The decision, and any conditions such as separate teams, is recorded against the engagement.
- Restrictions carry end dates, so they drop out when they expire.
The tool finds possible issues. Whether something is a conflict, and what to do about it, is a judgement for the partners and, where needed, your legal advisers.
We usually start by loading engagements from the last several years and the contracts that contain restrictions, with a partner confirming each extracted restriction. Earlier history can be added later if it is likely to matter.
After the check is in place
Before an engagement letter is signed, the partner sees a short list of relevant matches, if any, with sources. The relevant partners review them. The decision is recorded.
The firm can show, if ever asked, that it checked and what it concluded.
Is your conflict check like this?
- Conflict checks are an all-partner email.
- Contract restrictions are not tracked centrally.
- Group relationships between clients are not recorded.
- Conflict decisions are not documented.
- Conflicts have been found after engagements started.