Plan a conflict pre-screen during a live intake call

A live conflict pre-screen gives your firm an early opportunity to review a new inquiry against an approved source. It requires a defined information boundary, a supported lookup and a person responsible for the result. ClaireAI can support the configured workflow; your firm decides whether a conflict exists and whether to accept a matter.

Use this guide to prepare an implementation review. It describes operational choices to make with your team, rather than interpreting professional-conduct rules or certifying that a particular script meets them.

Decide where human review belongs

Map the first-contact process from the greeting to the next step. Identify what the caller may be asked before review, who receives an uncertain result and what the caller should hear while a decision is pending. A scheduled consultation, a completed lookup and a decision to represent someone are separate events; agree on the language and permissions for each.

Bring the current intake script to the review. Mark questions that need an attorney’s approval and details that should be deferred to a consultation. For an existing client, define how the call reaches the appropriate team without treating it as a new inquiry.

Define what the selected source can answer

Document which records are available to the pre-screen and which are outside its scope. A contact directory, matter database and former-client archive can contain different information. A result can only reflect the source, fields and matching behavior the selected workflow actually supports.

Avoid collecting an identifier merely because it appears in a generic checklist. Ask the firm to choose the minimum necessary details and approve their handling. Confirm whether each requested source can be connected before writing a script that depends on it.

Review the practice-area question bank as a starting point for your firm’s script.

Work through the possible call outcomes

1. A potential match: route the result to the designated reviewer using the firm’s approved language. Do not tell the caller that the software has made a legal decision.
2. No returned match: retain the limits of the lookup in the review record. A missing match is not a guarantee that no conflict exists.
3. An incomplete name or uncertain result: use the agreed follow-up path instead of inventing missing information.
4. The source is unavailable: follow the documented fallback and identify the owner responsible for reviewing the inquiry.
5. The caller asks whether the firm will represent them: use the response approved by the firm and route the decision to a person.

For a call involving several people or organizations, confirm which identifiers the firm wants collected and whether the selected workflow can check them. Do not assume that a caller-name lookup also searches related businesses, aliases or every party in a matter.

Draft language for firm approval.“Our team needs to review this inquiry before confirming the next step. May I take the contact details our team needs to follow up?” The firm should decide whether this wording fits its workflow and what information may be requested.

Make the review record useful

Decide what the assigned reviewer needs to see without reopening the entire call. The useful record depends on your process and the available connection. Confirm fields and storage before launch instead of assuming they will appear in a particular CRM.

• The call or inquiry reference and the time of the lookup, where available.
• The approved identifiers submitted and the source checked.
• The returned result, any uncertainty and any source-access problem.
• The assigned reviewer and the next action your firm chose.
• The access and retention rules for the resulting record.

Have a reviewer open a sample record and explain the next step. If the note cannot distinguish “no match returned” from “lookup failed,” change the recording or review process before relying on it. Confirm how corrections reach the reviewer when an identifier was misheard.

Review ClaireAI’s data retention and deletion information.

Test the pre-screen before live use

Use fictional records and approved test details. The point of these tests is to compare the configured behavior with the firm’s written instructions. They do not establish legal compliance.

Resolve differences between the intended and observed behavior with the implementation team. Repeat the relevant checks when a data source, script, permission or routing destination changes.

Confirm ClaireAI scope with your firm

Basic conflict pre-screening and real-time connected workflows depend on the selected plan, supported connection and firm configuration. The integration directory is a planning reference; an entry does not establish that every field, record type or lookup is available for your account.

Compare the current ClaireAI plans and pre-screening features.

See the Help Center checklist for configuring a conflict pre-screen.

Bring your proposed source, information boundary and review owner to a demo. Our team can confirm implementation scope and discuss how to test the workflow before it handles live inquiries.