Ethics
Conflict checking for solo attorneys: a Rule 1.7 walkthrough
Rule 1.7 conflicts in plain English, how to build a defensible check at intake, and what an audit trail should look like.
Rule 1.7 of the ABA Model Rules covers concurrent conflicts: when representing a new client would be directly adverse to an existing client, or when there is a significant risk that representation of one client would be materially limited by your responsibilities to another.
The two-step you actually run at intake
- Search your full party list. Every adverse party, every related party, every interested non-party. Not just current clients — former clients trigger Rule 1.9.
- Decide and document. If you proceed past a hit, document why — informed consent in writing if needed.
What "defensible" means
The Bar disciplinary committee that reviews your file in three years does not care that you "remembered" to check. They care that there is a record of who searched, what they searched, what the system returned, and what they decided.
How Draftiro automates it
As you type a new client name, opposing counsel, or related party, Draftiro searches every record across your firm's matters and flags hits. If you proceed past a flag, the system records who acknowledged, when, and the matter ID. The acknowledgment is part of the audit log — the same trail your malpractice carrier or disciplinary review would look at.
You are still the lawyer. The system is the seatbelt.
This article was published by the Draftiro team and reviewed by our attorney advisors. See our team and how we track AI ethics opinions.
Try Draftiro free