Keep matter roles explicit
Use a matter reference with each required subject. Keep the client, representative, and other parties separate.
Sanctions screening for law firms and legal teams
Keep client and counterparty checks with the matter.
Run sanctions checks for clients and counterparties in each matter. Review possible matches and save the source evidence. Give the lawyer a clear record of who was checked and why.
Paid plans start at $59/month for 5,000 checks each month. API and review dashboard included. See pricing.
250 free live screenings. One lifetime allowance. No credit card required.
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.
The person giving instructions may act for a company that is the legal client. A screening needs that distinction. The firm also needs to limit sensitive matter details to the people and systems that should hold them.
Preserve the legal assessment boundary
Compare source facts and explain why a match is the same identity, a different one, or still unclear.
Control sensitive evidence
Save review notes and required approvals under your firm’s access rules. Use your own process for privilege, conflicts and limits on the services you can provide.
Put it into practice
Connect screening to the next business step.
A new counterparty joins an existing matter.
A contact instructs the firm for a company client. Legal and operations staff need the right subject without adding the whole matter file to a name check.
Each result links to the same matter. The lawyer still decides whether to accept the client and which services to provide.
- 01
Define the matter’s screening scope
Identify the legal client and any other parties required by policy. Collect only the known details needed for their checks.
- 02
Investigate returned candidates
Run the selected sources and assign possible matches. Ask for useful evidence without adding unrelated matter detail to the input.
- 03
Retain the matter-level decision
Record the review and send the matter decision to the authorized lawyer. Keep the result references and wider checks clear.
The contact and client differ in a fictional matter
An individual gives instructions on behalf of Example Linden Holdings Ltd. in this invented matter. The firm records the company as the legal client. It screens any other required parties separately and links each result to the matter reference.
A company match lacks a registry number. The reviewer records the gap and seeks permitted company evidence. Privileged matter details that do not help identify the subject stay out of the request. The designated lawyer makes the engagement decision after the required checks and approvals.
Scroll horizontally to compare every column.
| Work item | Screening evidence | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Legal client | Distinct party identity and matter reference. | An instructing contact is not automatically the client. |
| Candidate review | Published identity facts and approved evidence references. | Do not substitute similarity for a supported identity conclusion. |
| Matter acceptance | Retained rationale and approval trail. | Conflicts, privilege, and legal-service restrictions need separate review. |
Test the matter handoff and access
Start free with 250 live screenings. Use them in the API or dashboard. Your first workspace gets this allowance once, with no monthly reset. No credit card is needed.
Try a client company and its contact with facts your firm may share. Ask legal staff to find the result for each party. Check that the review note explains the facts without adding unrelated client details.
The optional demo uses made-up records for a quick tour. Use the sandbox to test errors without using live checks.
Review role access, retention, and case exports against your firm’s process. Compare plans and confirm the exact sources in coverage. A synthetic test can show how staff use the tool. It cannot decide whether the firm may provide services in a real matter.
Keep scope and confidentiality clear
A client, counterparty, and person arranging the work may each need a separate check. Your policy sets which parties are required. Make the role clear in your own file, and keep sensitive findings in the approved review process.
The investigation guide explains how to compare evidence. Sanctions screening does not replace conflicts review, create privilege, or decide legal-service restrictions. The firm must assess those matters and retain the evidence for its own conclusions.
TRY IT WITH YOUR TEAM
See if SanctionsKit fits your team.
Check your sources, try a free live check and estimate your monthly cost.
Check source coverage
Find your required sources, what they cover and when they were refreshed.
Explore coverageTry a match review
Use your free live checks to find possible matches. Compare the evidence and save a decision.
Start with 250 free checksEstimate monthly cost
Count new checks, rows in uploaded lists and repeat checks from monitoring.
See workload examples
Evaluate the fit
Screening questions for law firms.
Does screening automatically preserve legal privilege?
No. Using a screening tool does not establish privilege. Your firm controls what information is submitted, who may access it, and how sensitive matter records are handled.
Can we screen counterparties separately from clients?
Yes. Submit each required person or company as its own subject and keep the matter reference. Your policy determines which roles require checks. One client result does not cover another party.
Does a potential match decide whether we can provide legal services?
No. Review who the match may be, the actual source, and the rules that apply. The responsible lawyer must assess the service and any other required checks or permissions.
Can screening replace the firm’s conflicts process?
No. Conflicts checks and sanctions list comparisons answer different questions. Keep each process and its decisions clear in the matter file.
How much matter information should we submit?
Use the known details needed to identify the subject and your reference for the work. Avoid unrelated privileged or confidential facts. Keep supporting originals in the firm’s approved document service and link them only as appropriate.
See SanctionsKit in action
Explore screening and review for law firms.
Start with 250 free live checks. Use the API or dashboard to review matches and save decisions. Choose a paid plan when you need more checks.
250 free live screenings. One lifetime allowance. No credit card required.