Who is checked before a matter is accepted?

The short answer to each of the eight steps; the detail of every step follows below.

1. 01/08

   Why is the conflict check done before accepting the matter?

   Because a conflict that surfaces after acceptance puts the client's confidences and the firm's disciplinary and liability exposure in play; if declining is mandatory, you need to know at the very start.

2. 02/08

   Who should be searched?

   Not only the prospective client and the opposing party, but their partners, managers, guarantors, co-debtors and anyone else tied to the dispute.

3. 03/08

   Where should you search?

   Across all the firm's client, case and advisory records, including closed files and matters on which an opinion was given.

4. 04/08

   When is a result a conflict?

   If you have acted for, or given an opinion to, a party with opposing interests in the same matter, declining is mandatory; in other cases the circumstances are assessed individually.

5. 05/08

   How is the check documented?

   The date, who ran the check, the names and ID numbers searched, the matches found and the decision taken are recorded and the record is attached to the file.

6. 06/08

   How is information protected inside the firm?

   An information barrier is not an exception that removes a conflict; it is an additional measure to protect professional secrecy.

7. 07/08

   When is the check repeated?

   When a new party is added, when a party's name or ownership changes and when a new matter is opened for the same client.

8. 08/08

   How is it recorded in software?

   At every stage from the intake record to conversion into a client, the search result, who ran the check and the time are recorded.

A fictional application is followed from intake to decision. On screen only one thing changes at each step; the same step is written on the left.

1. 01/05

   A new application is recorded

   The incoming application is logged: prospective client Kuzey Gıda A.Ş., opposing party Örnek Yapı A.Ş., subject rent receivable. There is no power of attorney yet and no detailed information has been taken.

2. 02/05

   Both names are searched separately

   The prospective client's name and the opposing party's name are searched across the firm's client, case, advisory and application records, closed files included.

3. 03/05

   One comes back clear, one matches

   Nothing is found for Kuzey Gıda A.Ş. For Örnek Yapı A.Ş. a closed lease file turns up: the firm acted as counsel for Örnek Yapı A.Ş. in that file.

4. 04/05

   The checking user and the time are recorded

   The names searched, the match found, the user who ran the check and the date and time are saved; the record is linked to the application.

5. 05/05

   A decision is made

   A match does not mean automatic refusal; the responsible lawyer reviews the file. Here counsel was given to the opposing side in the same lease relationship, so the application is declined and the reason is written to the record.

Conflict check

New application

Prospective client

Kuzey Gıda A.Ş.

Opposing party

Örnek Yapı A.Ş.

Subject

Rent receivable

Kuzey Gıda A.Ş.Not searched yet

Örnek Yapı A.Ş.Not searched yet

Matching record

2025/318 E. · Lease agreementClosed file

Örnek Yapı A.Ş. · the firm's client

Checked by: Selin Arslan, Attorney06.10.2026 · 10:42

Decision

Application declined

Counsel was given to the opposing party in the same matter.

‹›

01/05

A new application is recorded

A lawyer must carry out the assigned task with care, honesty and dignity and comply with the professional rules set by the Turkish Bar Association (Attorneys' Law No. 1136, art. 34 (opens in a new tab)). One concrete consequence is that in some situations the lawyer must not accept the matter.

The Attorneys' Law requires a lawyer to decline an offer where the lawyer has acted for, or given an opinion to, a party with opposing interests in the same matter; the duty extends to the lawyer's partners and the lawyers working alongside them (Attorneys' Law art. 38 (opens in a new tab)). A conflict is therefore the problem of the whole firm, not just one lawyer.

That is why the check is run before the power of attorney is signed and before you take detailed information from the prospective client. If a conflict appears after you have heard the details, you have already learned the other side's information; and what you learn from people whose case you do not take is also professional secrecy (Professional Rules art. 37 (opens in a new tab)). The flow from acceptance to power of attorney is shown step by step in the client intake guide.

In small firms the check is often brushed aside with "I know this person". Yet memory is not a reliable control against hundreds of names accumulated over the years; a written, searchable record is the only dependable support both for today's decision and for an objection that arrives years later.

The search list should cover all the parties to the dispute, not two names. Alongside the prospective client, search the opposing party, their representatives and the other people involved.

• The prospective client and their partners, managers and affiliates
• The opposing party and their partners, managers and affiliates
• Guarantors, co-debtors, heirs and other interested persons
• Third parties tied to the dispute, such as an insurer, a bank or an institution

A lawyer who earlier worked on the same matter as a judge, arbitrator, public prosecutor, expert or civil servant is also a ground for declining (Attorneys' Law art. 38/c (opens in a new tab)), so record the previous roles of partners and employed lawyers as well.

For corporate clients, look at the shareholding and management structure in the trade registry; name changes and mergers can bring an old party back under a new name. Run a multiple search that allows for spelling differences in personal names (surname order, Turkish characters, abbreviations).

The law names not only acting for a party but also giving an opinion: having given an opinion to a party with opposing interests in the same matter is also a ground for declining (Attorneys' Law art. 38/b (opens in a new tab)). The search must therefore cover advisory and opinion records, not only litigation files.

Collect the places to search in a single list:

• Client and opposing party records
• Open and closed case files
• Advisory, opinion and contract drafting records
• Intake and meeting records, including inquiries you did not take on
• Previous roles and relationships reported by partners and employed lawyers

The scope of the search should not depend on one person's memory. As a firm grows, keeping records in one place and running the search in the system is the only way to make the check consistent and repeatable.

As general information: the Professional Rules ask that a lawyer not accept the engagements of two people in the same case where the defence of one could harm the defence of the other (Professional Rules art. 35 (opens in a new tab)). A lawyer who has given legal help to one side in a dispute cannot take on the other side with conflicting interests or give it any legal help, and lawyers working together in a shared office are bound by the same rule (art. 36 (opens in a new tab)).

In criminal proceedings the test is this: the defence of several suspects or defendants whose interests are aligned may be given to the same defence counsel (Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271, art. 152 (opens in a new tab)). Where interests are not aligned, that option does not exist.

"The same matter" should not be read narrowly: even if the facts look different, if the link between the parties is shared across two files the conflict risk remains. When in doubt, consider safe routes such as declining, consulting your bar association and recording the decision in writing; the lawyer always makes the final call.

As a next step, it helps to sort the result into three groups: a clear conflict (the matter is declined), a possible conflict (decided by the lawyer, with the bar's view where needed) and no conflict (the matter is accepted). Decide in advance how the record is kept for each of the three groups.

Showing that the check was done matters as much as doing it. In a disciplinary or liability dispute, the strongest evidence you have is the record. Every check should record:

• The date and time of the check
• The person who ran it
• The name, company name and ID or tax numbers searched
• The matches found and the files concerned
• The result and the decision: accept, decline or more information needed
• The lawyer who made the decision

Recording the search terms is also consistent with the principle of proportionate processing of personal data: you take only the data you need for the check, do not use it for other purposes and keep the records under your retention policy (Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (KVKK), art. 4 (opens in a new tab)).

Lawyers are forbidden to disclose what has been entrusted to them or what they learn through their work (Attorneys' Law art. 36 (opens in a new tab)). A lawyer takes measures to stop assistants, trainees and other staff from breaching professional secrecy (Professional Rules art. 37/b (opens in a new tab)).

The provisions cited in this guide contain no exception under which a conflict inside a shared office is cured by an information barrier; lawyers working in a shared office are, in fact, bound by the rule against representing parties with conflicting interests. Think of a barrier as a secrecy safeguard, not a conflict solution.

Roles and permissions help here: limiting access to a file to the people who work on it makes who sees what a matter of record. In a firm with a broad access model, the source of leakage is often not technical but unauthorised visibility.

A conflict check is not something done once and forgotten. As a case progresses a new defendant may be added, an intervener may appear, a company may be transferred. Each of these calls for a fresh search. Repeat the check in these situations:

• When a new party or intervener joins the case
• When the name, ownership or management of the client or the opposing party changes
• When a new, related matter is opened for the same client
• When a new lawyer or partner joins the firm, after asking about their previous roles

In HukukBis the conflict check sits inside the intake flow: an incoming inquiry is recorded, assigned to a lawyer, searched by name or ID number for conflicts, the result and its details are listed, and once a decision is taken the inquiry is converted into a client.

Each check is stored with the user who ran it and the time; the result can be linked to the client or case record and past checks can be viewed as a list. So the question "was a check run before this matter was accepted?" is answered by a record.

Because access is defined through roles and permissions, only authorised people see the check results. To adapt the steps in this guide to your firm's workflow, see the feature page.

The search result lists the searched name next to the parties and files found, and the outcome is recorded.