The conflict your memory search did not find.

What the Nevada rules require

Nevada's conflict-of-interest rules are not optional procedures that a competent attorney might reasonably skip. They are professional conduct rules with disciplinary, malpractice, and disqualification consequences. Three rules govern the terrain a small firm deals with every intake. Confirm current text and any applicable State Bar guidance before relying on any specific requirement described here; the Nevada RPC are amended from time to time.

RPC 1.7: Concurrent conflicts of interest

RPC 1.7 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if that representation is directly adverse to another current client, or if there is a significant risk that representing the new client will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another current client, a former client, a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests. The rule applies at the moment of intake: if the conflict exists on day one and the firm takes the matter anyway, the representation is tainted from the start.

A concurrent conflict under RPC 1.7(b) can sometimes be waived if the lawyer reasonably believes the representation of each affected client will not be adversely affected, the representation is not prohibited by law, neither client's position is directly adverse to the other in the same or a substantially related proceeding, and each affected client gives informed consent confirmed in writing. The consent requirement is not a formality. A waiver that satisfies the rule requires that each client actually understand the risks of the joint or adverse representation, which means the attorney has to explain them. A blanket consent buried in a retainer agreement rarely satisfies the rule.

RPC 1.9: Duties to former clients

RPC 1.9 is where small firms run into trouble more often than they expect. Under RPC 1.9(a), a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter may not subsequently represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent confirmed in writing.

The critical phrase is "substantially related." Two matters are substantially related if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute, or if there is a substantial risk that confidential factual information obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the new client's position. The test is not whether you remember the confidential information. It is whether there was a substantial risk it could be used. A firm that handled a couple's estate plan, then takes a dissolution matter in which one spouse is a party on the other side, is squarely inside RPC 1.9 whether or not it represented both spouses in the estate matter.

RPC 1.9(b) extends the duty to a lawyer who acquired confidential information about a person while associated with a firm that represented that person, even if the lawyer never appeared as counsel. This is the imputed-knowledge problem: information travels with the lawyer, not just with the file.

RPC 1.10: Imputation of conflicts

RPC 1.10 makes the conflict problem systemic rather than individual. When any one lawyer in a firm would be prohibited from representing a client under RPC 1.7 or 1.9, no other lawyer in the firm may take the matter. For a two- or three-attorney firm, this means a conflict belonging to one attorney is a conflict that blocks the whole firm. The firm does not avoid the problem by handing the matter to a different partner. The conflict travels with the firm.

RPC 1.10(a)(2) provides a limited screening exception for disqualification based on a lawyer's prior firm's representation, not the current firm's, under conditions involving timely screening, no sharing of fees, and written notice. That exception has specific procedural requirements that must be met before the screen insulates the rest of the firm. The screen is not self-executing.

Where small firms fail

Large firms have conflict-check systems embedded in their docketing software and intake workflows. The check happens automatically, before the matter is opened, against a database that captures every party, every adverse party, and every matter from the day the firm opened. Small firms typically do not. The conflicts check is a manual step: someone types a name into a spreadsheet, runs a search in the case management system, or asks around the office. Each of those methods has a failure mode that is not theoretical.

• Name spelling variation. A former client whose name appears as "Johnson" in the old file may arrive at intake as "Jonson" or as "J. Johnson" or under a married name. A direct-text search misses all three. A human search misses at least some of them under time pressure.
• Matter description gaps. A conflicts database that only captures client names, and not adverse parties, captures only half the universe. A former adverse party who walks in as a prospective client is invisible to a client-name-only search.
• Departed attorneys. A client served by a lawyer who has since left the firm remains a former client of the firm. If that attorney's matters were not migrated into the firm's current system, the check misses them.
• Truncated institutional memory. The attorney who has been at the firm long enough to remember the former client may not be the attorney running the intake check. The institutional knowledge exists in a person's head, not in a searchable record.
• The check runs late. In a busy intake workflow, the conflicts check sometimes happens after the new client meeting, after confidential information has been disclosed, and after a de facto relationship has formed. At that point, declining the representation is harder to execute cleanly than it would have been at the beginning.

None of these failures requires carelessness. They require only a process that is faster to run than it is reliable.

What a software screen does

A conflicts screening tool addresses the failure modes a manual process cannot reliably fix. It holds every matter the firm has handled, every party to every matter, and every adverse party, in a searchable database. When a new party or matter arrives, the screen runs that information against the full database and surfaces every potential hit, including partial name matches that a direct-text search would miss.

The value of that kind of screen is not that it replaces judgment. It is that it surfaces candidates the manual search would not find, consistently, before a relationship forms. Whether each hit represents an actual conflict is a legal and ethical question the attorney has to answer, not the software.

What a software screen cannot do

A software screen cannot make the ethical determination. It can tell you that "Doe, Jane" in the new intake is a close name match to "Doe, J." in a prior file. It cannot tell you whether the two matters are substantially related, whether the interests are materially adverse, or whether a waiver is available and valid. Those determinations require legal judgment that the software does not have and is not designed to provide.

A clean screen is not an ethics opinion. A screen that returns no hits tells you the system found no candidates in the database you gave it. It does not tell you the database is complete. It does not tell you that no conflict exists. It does not substitute for the attorney's obligation to think through the new matter against their own knowledge of prior representations. The screen is a starting point, not a conclusion.

How DilloLex helps

DilloLex screens a new party or matter against the firm's existing matters and flags potential conflicts. The matching runs on party names, including surname-token matching so a typo, a nickname, or a partial name still surfaces as a candidate. The system is built to over-flag rather than miss: a borderline match that might be the same person appears in the results. A match that is clearly the same person also appears. The attorney reviews the flagged hits and makes the call.

Every flagged hit goes to the attorney. DilloLex never clears a conflict. It never makes the ethical determination that a conflict does or does not exist. It never decides that a waiver is available or that a matter is not substantially related. Those decisions belong to the supervising attorney, and nothing proceeds without the attorney's review and approval.

Because the screen runs on the firm's own appliance, no client content goes to an outside AI. The matters database, the party lists, and the flagged results stay on hardware the firm owns and controls. The screen does not expose client identity or matter information to any outside system.

The practical effect is that the intake check stops being a step the firm skips under pressure. It runs consistently, against a complete record of the firm's matters and parties, and it surfaces the candidates that a name-only search or a memory check would miss, before the first client meeting rather than after it.

You can read more about how DilloLex integrates into a firm's intake workflow, the firm's on-premises security posture, and how the appliance is priced. For the brief and citation side of your practice, see the guide to the Nevada pre-filing citation check and the guide to Bates numbering and production.

Common questions

Does a conflicts check software product satisfy my RPC 1.7 and 1.9 obligations?

No software product satisfies your professional obligations for you. The rules require the attorney to identify and analyze potential conflicts, obtain informed written consent where a waivable conflict exists, and decline the representation where the conflict is not waivable. A conflicts screening tool assists the firm in surfacing candidates; the attorney still has to evaluate each one and make the determination. Running a software screen is better than not running one, but a clean screen result is not a green light. Consult the current Nevada RPC and relevant State Bar ethics opinions before relying on any specific interpretation; this guide is general information, not legal advice.

What makes a matter "substantially related" under RPC 1.9?

Nevada RPC 1.9 and its comments treat two matters as substantially related if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute, or if there is a substantial risk that confidential factual information obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the new client's position. The test focuses on the risk that confidential information could be used, not on whether the attorney actually remembers it. Courts and bar authorities look at the factual and legal issues involved in each matter, not just the nominal case description. Confirm the current rule and applicable bar guidance before relying on any specific application of the test.

If a conflict is imputed under RPC 1.10, can a screen wall fix it?

A timely and properly implemented screen may satisfy the limited exception in RPC 1.10(a)(2) for conflicts arising from a lawyer's prior firm, not the current firm's. The exception has specific requirements: timely screening, no apportionment of fees from the matter to the screened lawyer, and written notice to any affected former client. A screen that is not set up correctly and in advance does not insulate the firm. The RPC 1.10 screen exception does not apply to conflicts arising from the current firm's own prior representations. Confirm the current rule text and State Bar guidance before relying on any specific reading.

How should we handle a conflict that surfaces after intake?

A conflict discovered after intake is harder to manage than one found before the first meeting. The general framework is: stop work, avoid using any information obtained in the new representation to the detriment of any affected client, determine whether the conflict is waivable, and if it is not, withdraw and take steps to mitigate harm to the client. Where the firm has obtained material confidential information from a prospective client before discovering the conflict, additional obligations under RPC 1.18 (duties to prospective clients) may apply. A timely conflicts check at intake avoids most of these scenarios. This is general information; consult current Nevada RPC and qualified ethics counsel for guidance on a specific situation.

Does the screen check adverse parties, not just clients?

Yes. The DilloLex conflicts screen captures both clients and adverse parties associated with each matter. A former adverse party who walks in as a prospective client, or a current client who has an interest adverse to the new matter's opposing party, is visible to the screen because the database includes party relationships, not just client names. The attorney still has to assess whether the specific facts create a conflict under RPC 1.7 or 1.9.

A note on accuracy

This guide is general information for Nevada legal professionals. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and it is not a substitute for the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct or Nevada State Bar ethics guidance. Nevada RPC 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, and 1.18 are amended from time to time, and bar authorities issue ethics opinions that bear on how the rules apply in specific situations; confirm current text and applicable guidance before relying on anything described here. DilloLex is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or legal services. Every output is intended for attorney review as decision support; the supervising attorney is responsible for all conflict determinations, all professional obligations, and all decisions to accept or decline representation.

See DilloLex run a conflicts screen at intake