14 Lawyers. One Spreadsheet. One Bar Complaint.

The managing partner's phone rang on a Tuesday afternoon. It was the state bar.

Not a client complaint. A complaint from opposing counsel. His firm had been representing both sides of a dispute without knowing it. Not the same case. Not the same partner. But the same underlying corporate parent, buried three layers deep in a subsidiary structure nobody had mapped.

One partner represented a developer. Another partner, separately, represented a company challenging that developer's zoning application. Different entity names. Different contacts. Different files. Same parent company.

The firm's conflicts check for both matters had followed the same process it always did: Ctrl+F on a spreadsheet with 1,200 rows, a quick email to the partners asking if anyone recognized the name, and whatever the managing partner could recall from 22 years of practice.

He didn't recall this one. The spreadsheet didn't catch it. The email round-robin returned three "nope, doesn't ring a bell" replies. Because the entity names were different. Because nobody had mapped who owned what.

It had worked fine for two decades. Until it didn't.

Fourteen attorneys in Nashville, Tennessee. Three practice areas: corporate and commercial, real estate, and litigation. A mix of local businesses, developers, and individual clients. Good reputation. Steady growth. The kind of mid-size firm that runs well because the managing partner holds most of the institutional knowledge in his head.

That was the problem, actually.

Every new matter crossed his desk for conflicts clearance. He'd search the spreadsheet. He'd email the partners. He'd think through his mental rolodex. Eight to twelve new matters per week, each one taking two to three hours of this process. Some weeks more, depending on how tangled the corporate structures were.

Do the maths on that. At the low end: 8 matters at 2 hours each. Sixteen hours per month. At the high end: 12 matters at 3 hours. Thirty-six hours per month. His billing rate was $380/hour. That's somewhere between $6,080 and $13,680 per month in time that never hits an invoice.

The bar complaint was the catalyst. But the real cost was already running long before that call.

Two things were true at the same time: the firm couldn't afford to get conflicts wrong, and the firm couldn't afford to keep doing conflicts this way. The managing partner was spending a quarter of his productive hours on what amounted to a search function. An important search function, yes. But still a search.

The spreadsheet had 1,200 rows. It included client names, matter descriptions, and opposing parties. Ctrl+F is great when you're looking for an exact match. It's useless when "Johnson Holdings" is in the spreadsheet but the new matter involves "JH Capital Partners." Same beneficial owner. Different name. Invisible to a text search.

The email round-robin was worse than useless because it created false confidence. "Does anyone know if we've dealt with Meridian Properties?" Three partners replied no. Turns out one of them had represented a Meridian subsidiary four years ago under a completely different entity name. He didn't remember it because the name was different. Why would he?

They looked at commercial conflicts software. The kind BigLaw uses. Pricing started at $40K per year. For a 14-person firm, that's impossible to justify. Those systems are built for firms with 200 attorneys and dedicated conflicts departments. They're powerful, but they're also designed for a scale that doesn't match.

And then there was the managing partner's memory. Twenty-two years of practice. Genuinely impressive recall. But one person's memory doesn't scale, doesn't create documentation, doesn't survive a two-week vacation, and clearly doesn't catch corporate hierarchies that weren't obvious when the original matters opened.

Every option was either too basic or too expensive. Spreadsheet or enterprise software. Nothing in the middle.

A four-stage conflict check system that runs every time a new matter is opened.

Stage 1: Entity ingestion

New matter details go in: client name, opposing parties, related entities, corporate affiliations. The agent cross-references against the Tennessee Secretary of State corporate registry and the firm's internal records to map parent, subsidiary, and affiliate structures automatically. If a new client is "Riverside Development LLC," the agent maps that Riverside is owned by Cumberland Capital Group, which also owns three other entities the firm may have encountered.

This is the step the spreadsheet could never do. It builds the corporate family tree before the search even starts.

Stage 2: Multi-layer search

The agent searches across the full client database. Not just exact name matches. Four parallel search types:

Fuzzy matching catches variations. "JH Capital" vs "Johnson Holdings." "Meridian Properties" vs "Meridian Property Group." Name abbreviations, slight spelling differences, DBA names.

Corporate hierarchy traversal walks up and down the ownership chain. A conflict with the parent is a conflict with the subsidiary, even if you've never seen the parent's name on a file.

Opposing party cross-reference checks whether any entity on the new matter was ever the firm's own client on a different matter. That's the scenario that triggered the bar complaint.

Related individual search looks at directors, officers, and registered agents. Sometimes the entity names are completely different but the same person is behind both.

Stage 3: Risk scoring

Every potential match gets a risk score and a color.

Red means direct conflict. Same entity, opposing positions. Stop everything, alert the responsible partner immediately.

Orange means related entity match. Not a direct conflict, but close enough to require partner review. This is where the bar complaint scenario lives. The entities aren't identical, but they're connected.

Yellow means name similarity. Low probability but flagged for awareness. Better to over-flag than miss something.

Green means clear. No matches found across any search layer. Auto-approved with a logged audit trail.

Everything gets recorded. Every search, every match considered, every decision made. Full documentation for bar compliance.

Stage 4: Partner review and resolution

Red and Orange flags route to the responsible partner with a brief: who the conflict involves, the relationship chain between entities, which existing matters are affected, and recommended next steps. The partner makes the legal judgment call. The agent did the search and surfaced the information.

This distinction matters. The agent doesn't decide whether a conflict is waivable or whether an ethical wall would suffice. That's legal judgment. What the agent eliminates is the two to three hours of searching, emailing, and guessing that precedes that judgment.

The corporate registry data was messier than expected. Tennessee's Secretary of State database is public but the formatting is inconsistent. Entity names include random punctuation, abbreviations vary ("LLC" vs "L.L.C." vs "Limited Liability Company"), and dissolved entities sometimes share names with active ones. We spent a week building normalization rules before the fuzzy matching could work reliably.

False positives were a bigger initial problem than missed conflicts. The first version flagged too aggressively. Common surnames, generic business names like "Premier Services" or "National Group," and frequent registered agents triggered dozens of yellow flags per matter. The managing partner spent more time dismissing false positives than he'd spent on manual checks. We tuned the scoring thresholds over three weeks, adding contextual weight to factors like entity type, practice area overlap, and date ranges. The false positive rate dropped from roughly 40% to under 8%.

The historical data migration took patience. The 1,200-row spreadsheet didn't include corporate hierarchies, related entities, or registered agent information. We ran the existing client list through the corporate registry mapping to retroactively build those relationships. It surfaced two previously unknown connections between existing clients that, while not active conflicts, the managing partner decided warranted disclosure conversations. Finding those before they became problems was worth the migration effort alone.

The ROI math is almost embarrassing. $180/month for the agent vs $10,640/month in recovered partner billing capacity. Payback period: the first week.

But here's the number that actually mattered to the managing partner: three potential conflicts caught in the first month that would've been missed by the old method. All three were Orange, related-entity matches. Not direct conflicts. The exact kind of hidden connection that triggers bar complaints. The exact kind that a spreadsheet and an email round-robin will never catch.

The bar complaint they'd already received was a warning. The next one wouldn't have been.

If you're running a professional services firm and your conflicts or compliance checking involves any combination of spreadsheets, memory, and email round-robins, two things are probably true.

Your best-paid people are doing your lowest-value work. A managing partner running manual searches at $380/hour is the definition of a process bottleneck hiding in plain sight.

And your risk exposure is invisible until it isn't. Spreadsheet searches feel adequate right up until the moment they aren't. The bar complaint, the malpractice claim, the client trust violation. It's binary. Fine until it's catastrophic.

The agent doesn't require enterprise software or an enterprise budget. It doesn't replace legal judgment. It replaces the search. The partner still makes every decision. The agent makes sure the partner has complete information instead of whatever Ctrl+F returns.

This applies beyond law. Accounting firms have independence requirements. Financial planners have suitability obligations. Consulting firms have client confidentiality walls. Anywhere "do we have a conflict?" gets answered by memory and a spreadsheet, there's a version of this agent that turns a liability risk into a documented, systematic process. At $180/month, the question isn't whether you can afford to build it. It's whether you can afford not to.

Want to see if your firm has a similar bottleneck hiding in plain sight? Take the free AI Bottleneck Audit. Five minutes. No pitch. It shows you exactly where the gaps are.

Want to see 25 agent architectures across different industries? Download Unstuck. It includes blueprints for intake, lead generation, scheduling, and more.

by SP, CEO - Connect on LinkedIn
for the AdAI Ed. Team