Use Case · Law Firms · Conflict and Risk
Law Firm Client Conflict and Litigation Check Before Onboarding
A client conflict and litigation check tells a law firm, before it accepts an engagement, two things: whether taking this client conflicts with an existing or former client, and what the new client is actually fighting about. A firm that onboards without that check risks a conflict of interest that can force it off the matter, or a client whose litigation footprint, adverse parties and reputational baggage turn a retainer into a liability. For a firm, client intake is where both professional-conduct risk and commercial risk are decided. This page explains what a law firm should search before onboarding a client, how the check protects the retainer and the firm, and how the search runs across a growing client base without being done by hand. Last verified October 2026.
- Two jobs: a conflict check against the firm's existing and former clients, and a map of the prospective client's own litigation footprint.
- What to search: the client under exact and former names, its promoters and directors, the adverse parties, and related entities.
- When: before accepting the engagement, when a matter expands, and periodically for ongoing key clients.
- Honesty: "nothing on record" is not a clean chit, and a hit on a common name needs a confidence flag and a human check before it clears or blocks a client.
01Why firms run a conflict and litigation check
Accepting a client binds a firm to a duty of loyalty and confidentiality. If the new matter puts the firm against an existing or former client, professional-conduct rules can force the firm to withdraw, wasting the work and damaging both relationships. And if the client's own disputes are worse than disclosed, the firm has taken on reputational and commercial risk it did not price.
At intake the check answers two questions a client questionnaire does not fully cover:
- Does this engagement conflict? Is any adverse party in the client's disputes a current or former client of the firm?
- What is the client really carrying? The client's full litigation footprint, including matters it did not mention, tells the firm what it is signing up to.
02The two jobs: conflict and footprint
A good intake search does two distinct jobs, and a firm should be clear which it is doing:
- Conflict check. Identify the adverse parties in the prospective matter and across the client's other disputes, then test those names against the firm's existing and former clients. The point is loyalty, not credit.
- Client footprint. Map the client's litigation across courts and tribunals, including related entities and directors, so the firm knows the client's real posture before it signs the vakalatnama.
Both jobs rely on the same raw material: an accurate, named search across every forum. The firm applies its own conflict database on top.
03What to search in a prospective client
As with any Indian group, risk and conflict travel through people and related entities, so the search reaches beyond the client name:
| Search | Why it matters at intake | Where it sits |
|---|---|---|
| The client entity | Its full litigation footprint under exact and former names | All courts and tribunals |
| Promoters and directors | Personal matters and the conflict picture attach to people | Criminal, civil, NCLT |
| Adverse parties | The names to test against existing and former clients | All forums |
| Group and related entities | Disputes and conflicts often sit in a sister company | NCLT, commercial courts |
| Insolvency and recovery | A client in distress changes the risk of the retainer | NCLT, DRT |
| Criminal and regulatory | Reputational and AML risk the firm must weigh | Criminal courts, regulators |
04Where the check sits in intake
The check belongs at the gate, before the engagement is accepted:
- Before accepting the engagement. The client, its people and the adverse parties are searched and tested against the firm's conflict database before a retainer or vakalatnama.
- When the matter expands. New parties joining a matter are re-checked, since a conflict can arise as a case grows.
- Periodically for ongoing clients. A standing client's new disputes can create fresh conflicts, so key clients are monitored.
05The cost of getting intake wrong
A missed conflict can force a firm off a matter after it has done the work, cost it a fee, and expose it to a complaint. A client whose litigation and reputational baggage was never mapped can drag a firm into a matter it would not have taken, or into AML and conduct questions it did not expect. Both failures start at intake, which is exactly where a disciplined search is cheapest.
Client intake is where a firm decides its own risk. The adverse party you did not search, or the client footprint you did not map, is the conflict or the surprise you meet later, under worse conditions.
06Reading the result honestly
An intake search is a professional-risk input, not a verdict on the client:
- "Nothing on record" is not a clean chit. It means no matter was found in the registries searched, on the date searched, under the names searched. A different spelling or an uncovered forum can still hide a case or an adverse party.
- A hit on a common name is not a conflict. Parties and clients often share names, so each potential match needs a confidence flag and a human check before it clears or blocks an engagement.
Used this way, the search supports the firm's conflict and intake judgement. It is not legal advice and does not replace the firm's own conflict rules.
07Where Claw fits
Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.
ClawScore (at clawscore.clawlaw.in) is Claw's litigation and criminal-risk intelligence service, and it supplies the raw material a firm needs at intake. Name a prospective client, its promoters, directors and the adverse parties, and ClawScore returns every matter it finds across 9,102 courts, benches and forums in one scored Excel workbook: a Summary with a ClawScore risk band (Clean, Low, Moderate or High), a Matters sheet, a Related parties sheet covering directors and group entities, and a Coverage sheet showing what was searched. The Matters and Related parties sheets give the firm a clean list of parties to test against its own conflict database, and the footprint it needs to price the retainer. Every finding carries a match confidence, which matters when parties share common names. Results return in under 5 seconds, judgment search spans 30 crore+ judgments with Supreme Court decisions from 1950 and High Court decisions from 1990, and Claw does not use your searched names or documents to train its AI models. ClawScore starts from Rs 500 per search plus monitoring. "Nothing on record" means nothing was found in these registries on the date searched under the names searched, and the workbook supports, but does not replace, the firm's own conflict rules. You can create a FREE Claw account to run an intake search.
To map a prospective client and the parties around it, run a case search across Indian courts by party name across every forum at once.
08Sources and further reading
- eCourts (district and High Court case status): ecourts.gov.in
- National Judicial Data Grid (official pendency data): njdg.ecourts.gov.in
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India: ibbi.gov.in
- Ministry of Corporate Affairs (company and director master data): mca.gov.in
- Claw: clawlaw.in
This page is general information for Indian law firms, not legal advice. A litigation search supports conflict and intake decisions; it does not replace the firm's own conflict rules or professional-conduct obligations.
09Frequently asked questions
What is a client conflict and litigation check at intake?
It is the search a law firm runs before accepting a client to do two things: confirm the engagement does not conflict with an existing or former client, and map the prospective client's full litigation footprint. It surfaces adverse parties and matters the client may not have disclosed, so the firm can apply its conflict rules and price the retainer.
How does a litigation search help with conflict checking?
It produces a clean, named list of the adverse parties in the client's disputes and the entities linked to the client, across every forum. The firm then tests those names against its own conflict database. The search supplies the raw material; the conflict judgement stays with the firm.
Whose names should a firm search for a prospective client?
The client entity under its exact and former names, its promoters and directors, the adverse parties in the prospective and existing matters, and related or group entities where disputes and conflicts often sit. Insolvency, recovery, criminal and regulatory matters should all be covered.
Does a clean result mean the client has no issues?
No. "Nothing on record" means nothing was found in the registries searched, on the date searched, under the names searched. A matter or adverse party under a different spelling or in a forum not covered can still exist, so coverage and a match-confidence flag on each finding are essential, and the search does not replace the firm's own conflict rules.
Can the check scale with a growing client base?
Yes, by feeding client and party names into a search that runs across courts and tribunals at once and returns a structured, scored result, with monitoring on key ongoing clients so a new dispute that creates a fresh conflict surfaces early rather than mid-matter.