n8n conflict-check intake for corporate law firms

Administrative searches miss mergers, abbreviations and entities appearing only in older matter records. Intake becomes slower when staff cannot distinguish a genuine conflict from a common-name coincidence or trace which archives were checked.

1. Capture prospective client, adverse parties and known affiliates before opening a matter.
2. Search authorized Clio records and narrowly scoped Google Workspace archives through n8n, recording coverage and unavailable repositories.
3. Have a supported Claude model propose spelling variants and entity relationships with cited evidence; replace the retired Claude 3.5 Sonnet model requirement.
4. Run deterministic exact and normalized-name matching alongside candidate aliases. An incomplete archive is an unresolved check, not clearance.
5. Generate a partner review packet and record the authorized reviewer’s decision in Clio. Restrict access to confidential prior-matter details.

Intake entities → n8n → Clio + scoped Workspace search
→ exact matches + Claude alias candidates → archive coverage check
→ partner conflict decision → Clio intake disposition

This n8n Code-node fragment consumes a normalized, authenticated event from preceding integration steps. It demonstrates the decision boundary, not a complete API client. Fields are workflow-local mappings, not claimed vendor field names. Upstream credentials, schema validation, permissions, durable reservations and provider operations must be implemented separately. Numeric policy examples are illustrative, not Imperio service terms.

// n8n Code node: incomplete coverage never means cleared
const check = $json;
const normalize = s => s.normalize("NFKC").toLowerCase()
  .replace(/[^a-z0-9]/g, "");
const name = normalize(check.prospective_entity);
const exact = (check.entities ?? []).filter(e => normalize(e.name) === name);
return [{ json: { exactEntityIds: exact.map(e => e.id),
  status: check.all_required_archives_searched ? "partner_review" : "incomplete",
  autoClear: false, matterRef: check.intake_ref } }];

Measure intake-to-review time and conflicts found outside exact-name search. Illustratively, six minutes removed from 100 administrative checks frees ten hours, but no reduction in review time justifies a missed conflict.

Manual searches remain necessary for nuanced relationships. n8n makes coverage and evidence consistent; a single CRM search is cheaper but may overlook approved historical repositories.

Ask Imperio to map your conflict-search coverage and build a partner-reviewed Clio intake workflow.

Can the system clear a conflict automatically?

No. It can assemble evidence and flag missing coverage; an authorized legal reviewer decides.

What about renamed or acquired companies?

Preserve alias and parent relationships with dates rather than merging names blindly.

Can all staff see prior confidential matters?

No. Search and review access must follow the firm’s matter-level confidentiality controls.

• Anthropic model lifecycle and retirement dates