Prepare record requests for privacy review.
Records teams chase incomplete authorizations.
Est. deploy 4–6 weeksSee the walkthrough
Compliance & Review · Legal
Prepare conflict checks before intake proceeds.
New inquiries lack the names needed for conflict review.
For: Conflicts attorneys and the team responsible for compliance & review in legal.
01 · The outcome
What good looks like.
The team has a restricted match report requiring attorney clearance, with source evidence and an explicit approval before any external action. Track inquiries reviewed before substantive intake against a baseline; do not assume automation improves it.
A connected workflow that uses prospective party names, aliases, adverse parties, and approved matter index to normalize names and surface possible matches without declaring a conflict cleared. It produces a restricted match report requiring attorney clearance.
Where AI helps, and where a person decides.
AI can normalize names and surface possible matches without declaring a conflict cleared. It drafts and organizes; it does not authorize spending, commitments, clinical decisions or customer communication. The conflicts attorney verifies the source facts and approves the final action.
Conflicts attorney is accountable. People approve customer-facing, sensitive, financial, and legally binding actions.
- Conflicts attorney: Capture the source and scope
- Conflicts attorney: Review the proposed outcome
- Conflicts attorney: Release only the approved version
- Conflicts attorney: Check the result and exceptions
A named person approves customer-facing messages, spending, record changes and binding commitments before release. Pre-approved scripts are versioned; exceptions stop for review.
02 · The handoffs
How the work moves.
Every handoff has an owner. Select a step to open or close its detail.
Start when: A prospective client submits an inquiry. Connect only prospective party names, aliases, adverse parties, and approved matter index. The conflicts attorney confirms the request is authorized and in scope.
Ready when: The source reference, permissions and accountable owner are recorded.
Use the authorized records to normalize names and surface possible matches without declaring a conflict cleared. Preserve the original language alongside the draft and label uncertain fields.
Ready when: Each proposed fact links back to a source, and missing information is visible.
Check a restricted match report requiring attorney clearance against the original records and current policy. Correct errors and escalate exceptions to the qualified specialist; do not auto-approve.
Ready when: Conflicts attorney has recorded approval or a reason to hold the item.
After explicit approval, save a restricted match report requiring attorney clearance in the system of record. Send only approved messages to verified recipients. Record the version and prevent duplicate delivery.
Ready when: The approved record is saved; any delivery is confirmed or placed in the retry queue.
Review inquiries reviewed before substantive intake each week, sample completed records for quality, and resolve held items. Change the rules only after reviewing actual errors and staff feedback.
Ready when: Exceptions have owners, the metric has a baseline, and corrective actions are assigned.
Sample record.
$ david run --workflow=legal-conflict-screen
ILLUSTRATIVE RECORD / NOT LIVE CUSTOMER DATA
- Example
- Illustrative only — not a real client record
- Reference
- LEGAL-CONFLICT-SCREEN-DEMO-001
- Trigger
- A prospective client submits an inquiry.
- Owner
- Conflicts attorney
- Prepared output
- a restricted match report requiring attorney clearance
- Review status
- Awaiting human approval — no external action taken
- Missing information
- Owner to verify source completeness
- Measure
- Inquiries reviewed before substantive intake
Start with your tools.
Connect Clio, Microsoft 365, Document management system through approved APIs or controlled exports. Map record identifiers first; test permissions and field updates in a sandbox. Vendor names describe possible connections, not a guarantee of an available integration or license.
When things go wrong.
- A named person approves customer-facing messages, spending, record changes and binding commitments before release. Pre-approved scripts are versioned; exceptions stop for review.
- Use only authorized sources and role-based access. Keep an audit trail of source records, drafts, approvals and delivery status; deduplicate retries.
- If an integration fails, a source is missing or confidence is low, pause the action and assign the original request to the accountable owner.
- For legal work, preserve privilege and confidentiality, check conflicts before substantive intake, and require a licensed attorney to approve legal advice, filings and engagement terms.
Try this week / no DAVID required
A useful first step.
This week, have your conflicts attorney time five examples of this work. Use redacted copies of prospective party names, aliases, adverse parties, and approved matter index to make a restricted match report requiring attorney clearance manually, then list which fields required judgment.
What to measure.
- Inquiries reviewed before substantive intake
- Minutes of human handling per completed item
- Drafts needing substantive correction
- Exceptions unresolved beyond the agreed review window
Estimate your time back.
20.8
$11,232
03 · More workflows to consider
Related workflows.
Move reviewed meeting notes into the archive.
Notes and follow-up commitments miss the compliance record.
Est. deploy 4–6 weeksSee the walkthrough
Check certificate requests before issuance.
Certificate wording can exceed the actual policy.
Est. deploy 4–6 weeksSee the walkthrough
Want this running in your business in 4–6 weeks?
Free 30-minute call. We'll tell you honestly whether AI fits, and where.