Before offering a slot, the agent compares the requester's name, the opposing party's name and the names of any other parties with the firm's list of clients, former clients and opposing parties. On the slightest resemblance, it books nothing, says nothing about any other client and passes the request to a person the firm has named.
The names the agent compares
The agent asks for three things before any slot: the requester's name, the opposing party's name and the names of anyone else involved (employer, business partner, spouse, other party to the contract). For a company, it takes the registered name and, if the requester knows it, the SIREN number (the French company registration number). It does not ask for the facts.
It compares those names with current clients, former clients and opposing parties already on record. Article 4.1 of the RIN bars a lawyer from taking a new client's matter "if the secrecy of information given by a former client is at risk of being breached" (our translation, as for every RIN quote in this section): closed matters are part of the comparison.
The comparison covers the whole firm. The same article applies these rules to the practice structure "as a whole and to all its members", and to associate lawyers' personal files. If those personal files are kept outside the firm's database, they have to be added, or the check has a blind spot.
Names are normalized before the comparison: accents, capital letters, company forms (SAS, SARL, the French equivalents of a corporation and a limited company), first name and surname order. The agent looks for a resemblance and does not require an exact match.
On namesakes, the rule is asymmetric: the agent flags every resemblance ("SAS Batiplus" and "Batiplus Construction"), a person clears the false positives. A false positive costs the assistant one e-mail, a missed conflict can cost the matter.
Which software, and how
The check queries the firm's client and matter database. A firm that records opposing parties in a dedicated field can query them. A firm that writes them in free-text notes has no usable base, and that has to be said before the project starts.
On Secib, the connector published in Microsoft's documentation has no search-by-name action. Its "Retrieving view's data" action returns the content of a view identified by its name. The firm creates a view listing the parties to each matter, the agent reads it and runs the comparison on its side. That is our reading of the documentation, to confirm with the vendor.
This setup sends the firm's entire client list through the agent. Article 2.3 of the RIN requires the lawyer to ensure secrecy is respected "by any person who works with them in their professional activity", and makes the lawyer answerable for breaches. We count the agent's provider among those people: the list stays in hosting the firm controls, under a contract that says so.
On Kleos, the API add-on sold by Wolters Kluwer is the only documented route. Ask in writing whether it allows a search by name across clients and opposing parties before relying on it.
Diapaz describes, in its KYC module, recording the role of each client and contact in each matter, and a view of potential conflicts "at a glance". The site mentions no API: the agent collects the names, a person runs the check in Diapaz, and the agent offers a slot only after that person clears it. The pattern is the same with Jarvis Legal.
Without an API, a regular export of the client and party list to a table the agent reads is enough. A matter opened since the last export will not be in it: the lawyer runs the check again when opening the matter, the last step of the diagram in section 01.
When the check finds a match
The agent stops. It offers no slot, books nothing and sends no payment link. The request goes through the firm's internal messaging to the person the firm has named for conflicts, with a stand-in for when they are away.
That person receives the names entered, the database entry that resembles them, the reference of the matter concerned and the source channel. The requester is never copied on that message.
To the requester, the agent replies that someone at the firm will pick up the request and get back to them. It uses the same sentence for an emergency, a question on fees or an area the firm does not handle. A reply used only for conflicts would give the match away through its wording alone.
What happens next is the lawyer's call: clear a false positive, obtain the parties' agreement where article 4.1 allows it, or decline. Any refusal and its wording are theirs. When in doubt about what to do, the lawyer consults their bâtonnier (the elected head of the local bar).
What the agent never says
It does not say that a name was found, that the opposing party is or was a client of the firm, which lawyer handles them, or why the request is going to a person. It mentions no other matter, even to reassure. Replying "we already act for that company" would disclose a client's name.
It can tell every requester, before any result, that the firm checks for conflicts of interest before every first meeting. Because every requester hears it, that sentence reveals nothing about anyone.
The rule rests on the RIN. Its article 2.2 puts "the names of clients and the lawyer's diary" under professional secrecy. Article 66-5 of the Law of 31 December 1971, the statutory basis of secrecy, covers consultations, correspondence, meeting notes and the documents in the file, and does not mention client names: the RIN adds them.
Neither text deals with a refusal on conflict grounds. Announcing a conflict to someone who has just named their opponent still tells them that the opponent is, or was, a client of the firm. We draw the rule from that: nothing in the reply may allow that inference. This is our reading of the texts, and the firm's own rules and the bâtonnier have the final say.
What the agent logs
Each check leaves one line in a log: date and time, channel, names as received and normalized names, source queried and the date it was last updated, result.
For a possible match, the line adds the reference of the resembling entry, the person notified and the time of the notice. The decision taken afterwards is entered by that person; the agent writes none.
The log holds neither the facts, which the agent never asked for, nor a copy of the client list. It stays in the firm's environment, open only to the people who handle conflicts, and the firm sets how long it is kept under the GDPR.
The RIN spells out a requirement for "adequate procedures to identify and manage conflicts of interest" only for members of a multidisciplinary network (article 16.4). For other firms, this log is a precaution we recommend: it shows which check preceded each meeting.
This section describes how the system works and is not ethics advice. The general framework for secrecy and AI tools, with the CNB guide and the Paris bar charter, is in our guide to professional secrecy and AI in French law firms.
