Keep matter roles explicit
Record which legal person or organization is being screened and its role in the matter. Do not confuse a signatory or intermediary with the client entity.
Sanctions screening for law firms
Separate client identity review from the legal-service decision.
Screen selected clients and matter parties with source-specific evidence, controlled access, and a documented handoff to the lawyer responsible for the matter.
API and compliance dashboard included in every plan.
SanctionsKitIllustrative workflow
ENGAGEMENT FILE
Client acceptance review
01People & entities screened
02Selected source coverage
03Review reasoning
04Retained evidence
Keep the screening attached to the engagement.
Built around your work
A source candidate does not decide whether a service is authorized.
A matter can involve clients, counterparties, corporate parties, and funds. A possible identity match needs investigation, while restrictions, exceptions, authorizations, and professional duties require a separate legal analysis.
Preserve the legal assessment boundary
Use screening evidence to resolve identity. The responsible lawyer separately evaluates the proposed service, applicable sanctions, and any relevant authorization.
Control sensitive evidence
Link approved external records with purpose and version. Avoid placing privileged or confidential material in a general note or notification without the firm’s authorization.
A practical use case
Separate client identity review from the legal-service decision.
Screen selected clients and matter parties with source-specific evidence, controlled access, and a documented handoff to the lawyer responsible for the matter.
The review challenge
A matter can involve clients, counterparties, corporate parties, and funds. A possible identity match needs investigation, while restrictions, exceptions, authorizations, and professional duties require a separate legal analysis.
How SanctionsKit helps
Record which legal person or organization is being screened and its role in the matter. Do not confuse a signatory or intermediary with the client entity. Use screening evidence to resolve identity. The responsible lawyer separately evaluates the proposed service, applicable sanctions, and any relevant authorization.
- 01
Define the matter’s screening scope
Identify the parties, activities, jurisdictions, and required coverage under firm policy. Assign ownership of sanctions and other diligence questions.
- 02
Investigate returned candidates
Compare reliable identity facts with the original source and retain the reasoning. Keep open questions visible while the firm determines the next action.
- 03
Retain the matter-level decision
Record the identity conclusion separately from the legal-service decision, approvals, and conditions. Revisit relevant changes during a continuing matter.
Evaluate the fit
Screening questions for law firms.
Does the software decide whether we may act for a client?
No. SanctionsKit does not give legal advice or determine whether a license, exception, or authorization applies to a service.
Does screening automatically preserve privilege?
No. Privilege, confidentiality, access, and repository choices need the firm’s own legal and security controls.
Can counterparties be screened separately from clients?
Yes. Use distinct subjects and retain their matter roles. Screening one party does not establish coverage of another.
Does a name match justify a public allegation?
No. A potential match must be investigated. Keep sensitive findings within the authorized review process and distinguish unresolved identity from established source facts.
See SanctionsKit in action
Explore screening and review for law firms.
Try the interactive demo with synthetic examples. Compare plans for your team’s screening volume.