Conflicts Are Rarely Announced: Building a Register That Remembers

The problem with waiting for a conflict to appear

Most firms have a conflicts process. Fewer have a conflicts memory. The distinction matters. A questionnaire at the point of instruction can capture what a fee-earner knows on day one, but it cannot anticipate a client merger announced six months later, a panel appointment that brings two long-standing adversaries into the same relationship, or a lateral hire whose personal connections are not yet visible in the firm’s records.

For firms operating across Leeds and London, the risk is compounded by distance. Teams in different offices may use different shorthand for the same client group, or may not recognise that a new matter in one city touches a relationship managed in the other. Conflicts are rarely announced with a clear label. They emerge quietly through changes in ownership, personnel and commercial relationships. A register that remembers those changes is more useful than a policy that assumes they will be spotted in time.

A register, not a formality

A conflicts register should be a living control, not a static list kept for inspection. At its simplest, it records the parties to each matter, the nature of the relationship, the jurisdiction and the office or team responsible. At its most useful, it also records the surrounding facts that make a conflict more likely: parent companies, group structures, known counterparties, panel arrangements, joint ventures and any personal or professional connections disclosed by fee-earners.

The register need not be elaborate. It needs to be consistent. Fields should be completed in the same way across Leeds and London, with a single convention for company names, trading styles and group entities. A register that lists “Smith Holdings”, “Smith Group Ltd” and “Smith & Co” as three unrelated entries will not help when a lateral hire arrives with a connection to one of them. Nor will it help if the London team records client relationships by commercial name while the Leeds team records them by legal entity.

A practical register also distinguishes between confirmed conflicts, potential conflicts and matters that require no further action. That triage prevents the register from becoming a repository of unresolved anxiety. Each entry should identify who reviewed it, when, and on what basis the conclusion was reached. The record is not bureaucracy for its own sake. It is the evidence that the firm considered the issue before, not after, a complaint or a challenge.

Reviewing the register at the right moments

An annual review is necessary but not sufficient. Conflicts do not respect the calendar. Firms should pair a scheduled annual review with event-driven triggers. The most common triggers are client mergers and acquisitions, panel appointments and removals, lateral hires, promotions into client-facing roles, new office openings and significant changes in a client’s ownership or group structure.

The annual review should be more than a circulation exercise. It should ask whether the register still reflects how the firm actually earns its fees. Are there client relationships that have become dormant but remain relevant? Are there matters that were closed but whose parties still create a risk in a new instruction? Are there teams whose work has grown in a sector where the firm now acts for competing interests?

For a firm with Leeds and London operations, the review should include a cross-office reconciliation. That does not mean a single meeting of every fee-earner. It means a structured comparison of client lists, panel arrangements and known counterparties, with a named individual in each office responsible for confirming that the local picture has been captured. The aim is not to create a central bureaucracy but to ensure that local knowledge is visible where it matters.

Escalation that works across two offices

Escalation is often the weakest link. A fee-earner may recognise a potential conflict but be unsure whether it is serious enough to raise, or with whom. A clear escalation route removes that hesitation. The first point of contact should be a designated conflicts partner or compliance lead, not a general inbox. The referral should be made in writing, however briefly, and should identify the parties, the relationship and the reason for concern.

The firm should set a response expectation. A potential conflict that prevents a new instruction from being accepted needs urgent attention; a historical connection that may require a check can follow a slower path. The important discipline is that the escalation is recorded and that the decision is communicated back to the instructing team. Silence is not a resolution.

Where the firm has offices in different cities, escalation should not depend on physical proximity. A named deputy in each office can ensure cover during leave and can act as a local sounding board. The goal is a route that is familiar enough to be used without embarrassment. Fee-earners should not feel that raising a conflict is an accusation against a client or a colleague. It is a control working as intended.

Information barriers are not a cure-all

Where a conflict is identified, an information barrier may be part of the response. It is rarely the whole response. A barrier can protect confidential information from flowing between teams, but it does not remove the underlying relationship. It also requires practical discipline: separate matter teams, restricted access to files, clear instructions on communications and a recorded decision about who may speak to whom.

Before relying on a barrier, the firm should consider whether it is workable in practice. Can the teams genuinely be separated? Are there shared support functions, billing arrangements or supervisory relationships that would undermine the barrier? Would the client be comfortable with the arrangement if asked? A barrier that exists only on paper is worse than no barrier at all, because it creates a false sense of protection.

The decision to use a barrier should be documented, reviewed at appropriate intervals and explained to those affected. It should also be clear who has authority to modify or remove it. In a two-office firm, that authority should be unambiguous. Otherwise, a well-intentioned local decision can quietly undermine a firm-wide control.

Keeping the discipline current in 2026

The conflicts landscape in 2026 is not static. Clients consolidate, panels change and talented people move. A register that was adequate last year may already be incomplete. The firms that manage this well are not the ones with the longest policy. They are the ones with a short, usable process that people actually follow.

That means a register with clear fields, an annual review with real cross-office participation, event-driven checks when relationships change and escalation routes that are known before they are needed. It means treating information barriers as a considered response rather than a reflex. Above all, it means accepting that conflicts are rarely announced. They are discovered by firms that have built a habit of looking.

McGoff & Byrne works with professional firms across Leeds and London on the practical governance of client relationships, disputes and regulatory risk. If your conflicts process has not been reviewed in the light of recent hires, mergers or panel changes, the start of a new year is a sensible moment to test whether the register still remembers what the firm knows.