Matter intake and conflict sheet

Acquisition engagement approved Aug 26 Supplier agreement intake missing 3 facts Facts due Oct 6 Client-visible

The facts Ashcombe Varley LLP needs from Solenne Foods before a conflict check can run, listed party by party for the Solenne acquisition of Corran Mill Bakery and for the second Solenne matter, a supplier agreement. Prepared by the matter intake coordinator at Ashcombe Varley LLP for Solenne's general counsel and for Henrik Dahlberg, chief financial officer. Imogen Varley, partner, decides every conflict outcome and accepts or declines each engagement. Darius Okonkwo, matter manager, keeps the intake queue. Status on Monday, September 28, 2026; issued Thursday, October 1, 2026.

Sample template: the firm, people, clients and figures are fictional.

Parties at a glance

The acquisition intake opened on Aug 20 listed 11 parties and entities. Nine were conflict-ready on the first pass. Two were incomplete because the seller, Corran Mill Bakery, has two affiliates that the intake did not name.

Live example from the Dashboards app, shown with Solenne Foods' demo data. Block dates move forward each week, so they can differ from the sample dates on this page.

The same measure as one number, which is the figure the conflicts clerk reads first on every new intake:

Live example from the Dashboards app, shown with Solenne Foods' demo data.

Two matters on intake

Solenne Foods has two matters open with the firm. Each one moves through the same four visible statuses: intake received, facts incomplete, conflict review, engagement approved or declined.

The supplier agreement intake is where this sheet earns its place. It is 4 days old and cannot go to conflict review until Henrik sends the three missing facts.

Parties and entities in the acquisition intake

Every row below has a legal name, a role in the deal and the facts the conflict check needs. Roles are named instead of people where the intake holds no named person.

What counts as a conflict-ready fact

A fact counts as supplied only when it arrives with its source document. A name in an email body is a lead, not a fact.

From listed to conflict-ready

The chart shows how the 11 parties and entities became 9 conflict-ready on the first pass, with the 2 seller affiliates shown as the gap.

Live example from the Dashboards app, shown with Solenne Foods' demo data.

A conflict check is only as good as the list it starts from. I decide the outcome, and I can only decide it on legal names.

The path from intake to engagement

flowchart LR
  A[Intake received] --> B{All facts present?}
  B -- No --> C[Facts incomplete: Darius asks the client]
  C --> B
  B -- Yes --> D[Conflict review]
  D --> E{Imogen Varley decides}
  E -- Accepted --> F[Engagement approved]
  E -- Declined --> G[Engagement declined]

Intake completeness checklist

Items for both matters, with owner and date.