An enquiry can name a prospective client, an opposing party and a company connected to the dispute in several inconsistent ways. A rushed conflict-check request may omit one of them or silently correct a name into the wrong entity. An assistant can organise the candidate information, provided it keeps extraction separate from the firm's decision process.
This article proposes a more complete conflict-check pack. All entities in the example are fictional. The pack is an input for authorised reviewers; it does not search unrestricted firm records, determine professional obligations or decide whether the firm may accept the instruction.
Extract possible parties without turning them into verified identities
Record names exactly as supplied, including abbreviations, punctuation and uncertain characters. A scanned letter may contain an unclear company suffix or a handwritten surname. Preserve the uncertainty and source location rather than choosing the most familiar spelling.
Separate a possible party's stated role from a verified role. An enquiry may describe someone as a director or representative, but that is a source statement until the firm's approved process confirms what matters. Include the statement and its provenance without presenting it as a verified relationship.
Google's Document AI overview describes OCR, text and layout extraction and structured field processing. These capabilities can support candidate extraction, but do not verify entity identity, relationships or a conflict determination. Source: Google Document AI overview
Define the authorised request scope
Use the firm's approved intake reference and conflict-check channel. Specify which information the authorised process needs and who may receive it. The assistant should not browse unrelated matter files because a candidate name seems relevant or return private details to an unverified requester.
The pack should contain enough context to support the check without copying unnecessary narrative or sensitive attachments. Where an original is needed, provide a permitted source reference through the established access path. A convenient shared link must not expand access to the intake material.
Also identify gaps before submission. A missing prospective-client identity, uncertain counterparty or unexplained related entity may require clarification. A complete-looking name list is not evidence that all required parties have been identified.
Conflict-check request pack
Use this complete hypothetical pack format. The firm should approve its required fields and submission route before applying it to real intake.
Intake: TEST-INTAKE-A. Purpose: prepare candidate parties for the authorised conflicts process. Status: draft request for factual review; no conclusion about whether the firm may act.
| Candidate reference | Original source wording and stated role | Interpretation and uncertainty | Review action |
|---|---|---|---|
| PARTY-A | Example Trading (Pty) Ltd named as prospective client in message M01 | Candidate organisation; exact identity not verified by this extraction | Intake owner verifies required identity details through approved process |
| PARTY-B | Example Holdings named as counterparty in M01 | Suffix and full registered name absent | Clarify full name and record the original wording |
| PARTY-C | J. Example described as representative in letter L01 page 1 | Initial only; role is asserted by the letter, not independently confirmed | Request the information needed by the authorised check |
| PARTY-D | Example Trading Ltd in attachment A01 | Similar to PARTY-A but not established as the same entity | Keep separate candidate until reviewer resolves identity |
| RELATION-A | L01 says PARTY-C acts for PARTY-A | Source-linked proposed relationship | Reviewer determines relevance and verification needed |
| GAP-A | Attachment refers to another participant without a name | Candidate information incomplete | Hold completeness claim and assign clarification owner |
Attach the source register with message or document reference, source location, extraction status, permitted access and any uncertain text. Maintain both original wording and a proposed search form where the authorised process requires one. Proposed spelling variants are labelled as suggestions and never replace the source silently.
Submission fields: intake reference; prospective-client candidate; possible counterparties; related entities or individuals stated in sources; role assertions; spelling variants; unresolved gaps; approved request audience; preparer; factual reviewer; pack version; and submission status. Exclude a field labelled cleared unless it comes from the authorised process and the firm's approved record design.
Acceptance fixtures: a clear party list; an initial-only person; an unreadable suffix; two similar entity names; duplicated copies of one letter; and a missing participant name. Expected outcomes are traceable candidates and explicit uncertainty, with duplicates linked to their original source and no model-generated clearance decision.
The pack is ready when the factual reviewer approves its candidate information or records the outstanding questions, and the authorised submission path is confirmed. A resulting decision must be obtained and recorded through the firm's established process, rather than inferred from the pack's completeness.
Keep structure useful without accepting false certainty
OpenAI's Structured Outputs guide supports constrained fields and refusal handling. A schema can require original name, proposed role, source and uncertainty. It does not prove that a party was identified correctly or that every relevant entity appears in the request. Source: OpenAI structured outputs
Require separate candidate and verified states. If the model cannot read a name or the source is missing, record that result instead of supplying a plausible replacement. Check the original document for important names before the factual review is completed.
Do not add a single confidence score that hides the reason for uncertainty. A reviewer needs to know whether the issue is spelling, role, identity or missing evidence. Those distinctions lead to different clarification questions and prevent a generic hold from becoming a dead end.
Use source retrieval within the intake boundary
OpenAI's file-search guide describes retrieval from uploaded files with citations. It can help locate a party mention in the approved intake pack, but does not provide the firm's conflict database or decide who may access unrelated matters. The application must enforce the actual permitted source scope. Source: OpenAI file search
Keep retrieved names connected to their specific statement and version. A related organisation mentioned in an old draft may need different treatment from one in the current enquiry. The factual reviewer should decide what belongs in the submitted candidate list, while preserving the unresolved evidence where relevant.
Check source links as the intended reviewer. A citation should allow verification through authorised access, not publish the whole intake folder. If a source cannot be opened by the reviewer, record the access gap rather than treating the citation as usable evidence.
Work through normal, missing and duplicate candidates
In a hypothetical normal case, the enquiry clearly names the prospective client and counterparty. The assistant extracts both with source references and the intake owner verifies the required factual details. The approved pack goes to the firm's authorised conflicts process, which makes the applicable decision.
In a missing-information case, a person is identified only by an initial and an asserted relationship. The assistant records the limited wording and prepares a clarification question. It does not identify the person from a similar name in another matter or assume the relationship is established.
In a duplicate case, two copies of the same letter repeat a party name. The pack lists one source-derived candidate with both collection references. If the names are similar but the underlying entities may differ, keep them separate until an authorised reviewer resolves the identity question.
Record the handoff without making the decision
The preparation workflow should distinguish draft, factually reviewed, submitted and authorised-process outcome. A submitted request is not a completed check. An unanswered check remains pending, even if the prospective client needs a quick response.
Any client communication about acceptance or next steps follows the firm's approved process. The assistant should not say the firm can act merely because the extraction passed its schema or no issue appeared in the preparation pack. This boundary preserves the value of better intake without inventing a professional determination.
FAQ about AI-assisted conflict-check preparation
Can the assistant merge two similar company names?
It can suggest a possible relationship for review, but should preserve separate candidates and original wording until identity is verified through the approved process. Similarity is not a determination that they are the same entity.
Does a complete party list mean the firm is cleared to act?
No. It is preparation evidence for the authorised conflicts process. The applicable decision and any conditions must come from that process, not from the assistant's extraction.
What if an important name cannot be read?
Record the unreadable location and request a suitable source or clarification through the intake owner. Keep the gap visible and avoid a guessed spelling presented as verified identity.
If your business needs help defining this process, explore AI agents for law firms, the wider AI automation services, and our custom-agent workflow guide. The agents and automation comparison and custom AI agent glossary explain the terms. To discuss your records and approval rules, get in touch.