Most disciplinary actions on conflicts are not about "the lawyer knew" — they're about "the lawyer didn't have a system." Here is the system.

The intake checklist

Capture every party name at intake: client, opposing party, related parties, opposing counsel, insurance carrier, key non-parties (witnesses with stakes).
Search every name against the full firm matter list — current and closed.
Record the search result, even when nothing matches.
If a hit, run the substantial-relationship test (Rule 1.9 for former clients).
Decide. Document the decision, the basis, and any informed consent.
If you proceed past a flag, get the conflict waiver in writing.

What "documented" actually means

Who performed the check.
What names were searched (verbatim).
What the system returned.
What the lawyer decided.
If informed consent was obtained, the date, the parties, the medium (writing required for current-client conflicts; advisable for former-client).

Common failure modes

Search only the client name. Misses opposing party in another matter where you represented them.
Search only current matters. Misses former-client conflicts under Rule 1.9.
"Memory check." Doesn't survive a disciplinary review.
Verbal acknowledgment. The bar wants writing.

How Draftiro automates this

Draftiro searches every party name across every matter — current and closed — as you type. Hits show the matching matter and the role each party played. Acknowledgments record the user, timestamp, and matter ID. Conflict-waiver templates are pre-drafted with Rule 1.7 language.

Related reading: the Rule 1.7, Rule 1.9, and conflict check glossary entries, and the deeper Rule 1.7 walkthrough for solo attorneys.