[Legal Firm Intake System] Add mandatory AKA/nickname fields to intake forms

So it’s been about seven months since the conference room incident, and people have been asking what happened. Short answer: it’s been a mess. About three weeks after I withdrew from Dave’s case, I got called into a meeting with the senior partners. Three partners, our firm’s general counsel, and a rep from our malpractice carrier on video call. The managing partner slides a folder across the table. “Opposing counsel reported a conflict of interest issue to the state bar under Rule 8.3. We’ve been notified of a disciplinary inquiry.” Fuck. Dave’s new attorney filed the report. They don’t get to decide what happens - they just report potential violations and the bar takes it from there. I have to explain everything. How I met Sarah, how we’d been casually dating for a couple months, how she used a different name socially, how my conflict check on her legal name didn’t flag anything because I never connected the dots. The general counsel is taking notes. “Walk me through your conflict check process.” I explain the intake procedures, how the system works, how Sarah’s legal surname didn’t match what she’d told me. It sounds worse when I say it out loud. “This is a clear Model Rule 1.7(a)(2) issue - material limitation conflict,” the general counsel says. “You were correct to withdraw under Rule 1.16, but we need to understand how this wasn’t caught earlier.” The malpractice carrier rep unmutes. “We’ll need to document this as a circumstance that could lead to a claim. It’ll be noted when your policy comes up for renewal.” Great. The firm mandates that I complete an eight-hour CLE on conflicts of interest before taking any new client intakes. They’ve already registered me for a seminar that Saturday. Eight AM, of course. I show up at a hotel conference room with about twenty other attorneys. One of the instructors is Patricia, a divorce attorney I’ve opposed a few times. She definitely knows why I’m there based on the look she gave me. Most of the morning is standard material - rules, case law, procedures. Then we get to case studies and Patricia brings up In re Johnson, a 2019 disciplinary matter. Attorney representing a divorce client starts dating someone, turns out to be the opposing party, discovers it at a settlement conference. Same exact situation as mine from six years ago in a different state, and I wanted to sink through the floor. At lunch, another attorney mentions he heard about something similar happening “at a firm in town recently.” Doesn’t know it’s me, but clearly the story’s getting around. I finish the seminar, pass the exam, bring the certificate back to the firm. A few weeks later, the bar sends a letter. The inquiry is closed with a private caution - basically a warning that stays in their files but isn’t public discipline. Could’ve been worse. My malpractice premium went up about 15% when it renewed in September. The carrier cited the “reported disciplinary circumstance” in the renewal letter. The firm implemented some new procedures for me specifically. For the next six months, I have to get conflicts pre-cleared by the general counsel before taking on any new client. They also added mandatory AKA/nickname fields to our intake forms and conflict check system. The worst part isn’t the official stuff though. It’s that people know. Not everyone, but enough. I’ve been called “the coffee shop lawyer” twice at bar events. Last month opposing counsel asked if I’d “met the other party before” with this look on her face. The story’s definitely circulating. Some versions have me engaged to Sarah. One has me not finding out until trial. It’s becoming one of those cautionary tales people tell each other. Haven’t dated anyone since March. Deleted the apps. Before I did, I matched with someone who mentioned her divorce and I immediately asked who her lawyer was. She unmatched pretty quick. Can’t really blame her. Dave, if you see this - I’m sorry, man. I really didn’t know. I hope things worked out okay for you. Sarah - hope you’re doing well. Everyone else - just ask the basic questions. Run proper conflict checks. Verify AKAs. It’s not worth it. TL;DR: Opposing counsel reported the conflict to the bar under Rule 8.3, firm made me do mandatory CLE, inquiry closed with a private caution, malpractice premium went up 15%, now I need pre-clearance on new clients and the firm added AKA fields to our system. Story spread around the local legal community, got a nickname, haven’t dated since. Officially just a caution, but reputation took a real hit.