Update to Rohas Legal AI: Practice

{
  "description": "Run structured, confidentiality-preserving legal conflict checks across prospective clients, current and former clients, adverse parties, affiliates, related people, matters, witnesses, funders, experts, and lawyer interests. Use at intake and whenever parties, scope, staffing, or relationships change.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 304
    }
  ],
  "name": "conflict-checker",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: conflict-checker\ndescription: >-\n  Run structured, confidentiality-preserving legal conflict checks across\n  prospective clients, current and former clients, adverse parties, affiliates,\n  related people, matters, witnesses, funders, experts, and lawyer interests.\n  Use at intake and whenever parties, scope, staffing, or relationships change.\n---\n\n# Conflict Checker\n\nProduce a documented search and escalation record, not automatic ethical\nclearance. Apply the binding professional rules of every relevant jurisdiction.\n\n## Intake\n\nCollect only the information necessary to search: proposed client, legal and\ntrading names, affiliates, beneficial owners, directors, key individuals,\nadverse parties, counterparties, related matters, witnesses, experts, funders,\ninsurers, referral sources, subject matter, geography, proposed team, and lawyer\nor firm financial and personal interests.\n\n## Checking method\n\n1. Define the prospective client, scope, adversity, affected offices, lawyer\n   mobility, applicable rules, and search date.\n2. Standardise names and generate controlled aliases, former names, transliterations,\n   abbreviations, group entities, and individual-entity relationships.\n3. Search authoritative client, matter, contact, former-client, intake,\n   engagement, decline, lateral-hire, and business-interest systems with an audit log.\n4. Classify results as exact, likely, possible, or false match; never clear a\n   fuzzy result by name alone.\n5. Test current-client conflicts, former-client duties, prospective-client\n   information, own-interest conflicts, joint-client issues, positional conflicts,\n   witness or advocate roles, third-party payors, and confidential information.\n6. Separate duties of loyalty, confidentiality, independence, privilege, and\n   disclosure. Consent does not cure every conflict.\n7. Determine whether the issue is prohibited, consentable, screenable,\n   waivable with informed written consent, manageable by scope, or requires decline\n   or withdrawal under current local rules.\n8. Share only the minimum information needed to resolve the conflict. Use an\n   ethics partner or protected process where disclosure itself could prejudice a client.\n9. Record the decision-maker, rule, facts, consents, screens, undertakings,\n   restrictions, review triggers, and expiry or recheck date.\n10. Re-run the check when parties, affiliates, claims, staffing, firm structure,\n    funding, experts, or adverse interests change.\n\n## Output\n\nProvide the name and relationship map, search log, match table, issue analysis,\nconfidential escalation note, clearance decision record, consent or screen\nrequirements, and ongoing monitoring triggers.\n\n## Guardrails\n\nNever expose confidential matter descriptions in broad searches, infer no\nconflict from no database hit, or treat client consent as sufficient without a\nlegal basis. Do not begin substantive work before required clearance. Escalate\nuncertain, own-interest, lateral, joint-representation, and cross-border issues.\n"
}