The Front Door
Why it Matters
When someone calls a small firm about a new case, the voice that answers may be a paralegal’s. Rules written for lawyers reach that call before the firm has a client. What the caller says stays confidential even if the firm turns her away, and a name she mentions in passing may belong to one of the firm’s own clients. When she asks what her case is worth, the kind answer is legal advice, which a paralegal may not give. The paralegal on that call is you.
Current Context
In May 2026, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that a Daytona Beach firm should have been disqualified from a divorce (opens in a new tab). The retired judge who had presided over the case for sixteen months had become one of its partners. Under Rule 4-1.12 (opens in a new tab), the firm’s other lawyers could stay on only if the former judge was screened in time and the parties and the court got prompt written notice. The firm sent no notice, and its only evidence of a screen was the unsworn word of its founding partner, even though the file sat with a paralegal within the former judge’s reach. Because the firm did not meet the rule, the court held, one partner’s conflict became every lawyer’s.
Key Concepts
Prospective Client
Under Rule 4-1.18, a person who consults a lawyer about possibly forming a client-lawyer relationship is a prospective client, and what she says stays confidential even if the firm never takes her case. If the firm learns something that could be used against her, it can be barred from representing anyone on the other side of the same or a substantially related matter. A careful intake therefore gathers only what the firm needs to decide whether it can take the case.
Legal Information and Legal Advice
Information explains how the law or the process works in general, such as what a contingency fee is or what happens after the call. Advice applies the law to one person’s facts, such as what her claim is worth or whether she was at fault, and giving it is practicing law, a felony for the unlicensed under section 454.23. Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 88-6 advises that a nonlawyer who takes a first interview must disclose that status, gather only facts, and leave the case and the fee to the lawyer.
Conflict Check
The search of the firm’s records for every person and company connected to a new matter, run before the firm takes it. The intake must capture the names: the prospective client, the other side with its owners and insurers, related people such as a spouse or a witness, and any lawyer she has already consulted. A match goes to a lawyer with two facts: whether the record lists the name as a client or an adverse party, and whether that matter is open or closed.
Current-Client Conflict
Rule 4-1.7(a) bars a representation that is directly adverse to another current client, even in an unrelated matter, or that duties to someone else put at substantial risk of material limitation. The firm may go ahead only under Rule 4-1.7(b), whose conditions include each affected client’s informed consent, confirmed in writing or clearly stated on the record at a hearing. Suing a company the firm represents today is the plainest example.
Former-Client Conflict
Rule 4-1.9 bars a lawyer, without the former client’s informed consent, from acting against that client in the same or a substantially related matter. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. K.A.W., the Supreme Court of Florida held that the earlier attorney-client relationship alone raises an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed. The duty outlasts the file, and the lawyer also may not use what the earlier work revealed to the former client’s disadvantage, except in narrow cases the rule names.
Imputed Disqualification
Under Rule 4-1.10(a), while lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them may knowingly take a matter that Rule 4-1.7 or 4-1.9 would bar any one of them from taking alone. Florida’s rule offers no screen to cure that, only the affected client’s consent under the conditions in Rule 4-1.7, so one partner’s former client can stop an associate’s case. Nonlawyers are different: the comment says a paralegal with a conflict ordinarily must be screened, and courts have split over when one who switches sides disqualifies the new firm.
Contingency Fee Contract
Under Rule 4-1.5(f), a fee that depends on the outcome needs a written contract, signed by the client and a lawyer, stating the percentages and the costs to be deducted. In an injury case, the lawyer must first give the client the Statement of Client’s Rights, signed by both. The contract must also say the client may cancel it in writing within three business days and owe no fee for that time.
Engagement and Declination Letters
An engagement letter confirms that the firm represents the client, in what matter, and how the fee is figured: hourly, flat, or contingent. Rule 4-1.5(e) requires that a new client learn the basis or rate of the fee, preferably in writing, and a nonrefundable fee must be confirmed in writing. A declination letter tells a prospective client that the firm will not represent her, gives no opinion on her claim, and warns that time limits may bar it, without saying what they are.
Resources
- Intake workbook (The Intake Sheet you fill in during the call, Temko Eden’s Conflicts Index to search as names come up, and the Names Run log where you record each search. It opens in Excel or Google Sheets.)
- Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (opens in a new tab) (Chapter 4 holds Rules 4-1.5, 4-1.6, 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10, 4-1.18, and 4-5.3, and the Statement of Client’s Rights for contingency fees is printed inside Rule 4-1.5. Chapter 10 holds the paralegal definition in Rule 10-2.1(h).)
- Section 454.23, Florida Statutes: Penalties (opens in a new tab) (The statute that makes practicing law without a license a felony, which is why the caller’s legal questions go to a lawyer.)
- Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 88-6 (opens in a new tab) (The Bar’s ethics committee on a nonlawyer who conducts a first interview: identify yourself as a nonlawyer, gather only facts, and give no advice about the case or the fee agreement. The lawyer then reviews what you gathered and confers with the client. Advisory, not binding.)
- Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (opens in a new tab) (Generative AI in practice, including the chatbots firms use for intake. The committee applies Opinion 88-6’s limits to them and warns that a chatbot can create a prospective-client relationship without the lawyer knowing.)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1991) (opens in a new tab) (The Florida Supreme Court’s test for disqualifying a firm that once represented the other side: the earlier relationship raises an irrefutable presumption that confidences were shared, and the matters must be the same or substantially related.)
- Koulisis v. Rivers, 730 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (opens in a new tab) (A defense firm’s legal secretary went to work for the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the same case. The court held her new firm had to be disqualified even though it kept her away from the file.)
- Lansing v. Lansing, 784 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (opens in a new tab) (The Fifth District, which hears Daytona Beach’s appeals, lets a firm that hires the other side’s secretary keep the case if it screens her and receives no confidences. This firm never screened her, and she worked on the husband’s file, so it was disqualified.)
- Consumer Pamphlet: Florida Registered Paralegal Program, The Florida Bar (opens in a new tab) (The Bar’s list of conduct barred to paralegals, including accepting cases, setting legal fees, and giving legal opinions or advice.)
- NALA Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility (opens in a new tab) (The national paralegal association’s canons. Canon 1 bars setting fees and giving legal advice, Canon 7 protects client confidences, and Canon 8 requires a paralegal to disclose relationships that may conflict with an employer’s clients.)
- Client Intake Forms, LegalFuel (opens in a new tab) (The Florida Bar’s practice resource center: sample intake sheets, a conflict search form, and a request for a conflict search. Compare them with the workbook’s Intake Sheet.)
- Client Fee Agreements and Letters of Representation, LegalFuel (opens in a new tab) (Sample contingency fee agreements, the Statement of Client’s Rights, engagement letters, and six non-engagement letters that warn that time limits may bar a claim without stating the deadline.)
What to Do
You play the paralegal at Temko & Eden, P.A., taking a first call from a woman hurt in a fall, and an AI plays the caller. The simulation trains the skills a paralegal uses on every new matter. You gather what the conflict check and the fee agreement need, answer questions without giving legal advice, and stop when a name in the story turns up in the firm’s records. You post the intake workbook and a reflection.
Part 1: Set Up
Read the rules the call tests before you start. In Chapter 4 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, read Rules 4-1.18, 4-1.7, 4-1.9, and 4-1.10, then Rule 4-1.5(e) and (f), with the Statement of Client’s Rights printed inside it. In Chapter 10, read the paralegal definition in Rule 10-2.1(h). Read section 454.23, Ethics Opinion 88-6, and the Bar’s pamphlet on what a paralegal may and may not do, and skim K.A.W. for the test a court applies to a former client’s conflict. Then download the intake workbook and look over its three sheets. You fill in the Intake Sheet during the call, search the Conflicts Index as names come up, and record each search on the Names Run log. Skip the reading, and the call tests only your instincts.
Part 2: Run the Simulation
Temko & Eden, P.A. A three-lawyer firm on Beach Street in Daytona Beach. It still carries the names of its late founders. Dana Whitfield, the managing partner, handles civil litigation and real estate closings. Luis Ortega, a partner, handles family law and probate, and Kim Nguyen, an associate, handles personal injury. Marcy Cole is the legal assistant, Ron Pike is the bookkeeper and office manager, and you are the firm’s paralegal.
A note from Kim Nguyen, on your desk this morning. I’m in a deposition until three, and Dana is at a closing across town. If a new injury call comes in, take it: fill in the intake sheet, run every name through the conflicts index, and log what you ran. I’ll return calls this afternoon.
Open the workbook beside a fresh AI chat and paste in the Simulator. Play the paralegal honestly and stay in character. Fill in the Intake Sheet as the caller talks, search the Conflicts Index for each name the moment you hear it, and log every search on the Names Run sheet. Do not ask the AI what to say or whether you got something right; it will redirect those questions and keep the call going. The call ends only when the simulator declares one of its four endings; plan on at least twelve exchanges and about thirty minutes for a full call. If it ends on advice before the store’s name has come up, start over in a fresh chat, because the moment that name appears is the point of the exercise.
Part 3: Finish the Intake Workbook
Right after the call, while it is fresh, complete the Intake Sheet from your notes and the chat. Then write the conflict flag in its section, 100 to 150 words for Kim Nguyen and Dana Whitfield. Give the name that matched and what its row in the index shows, and when it came up in the call and what you did next. Then say what you told the caller and what a lawyer now has to decide. Leave that decision to the lawyers. If your search found no match, say so and list what you ran. Save the workbook as it stands; you post it unchanged, and the reflection is where you say what you would do differently.
Part 4: Debrief
After a break of at least an hour, paste the Debrief into a new chat with your chat link or a summary of the call. Then paste in your Intake Sheet and your Names Run log. Read its evaluation against the rules it cites, and open each rule in Resources before you accept what the AI says it requires.
Part 5: Replay with the Conflict Check Trainer
Run the Conflict Check Trainer in another new chat. It builds its own firm database and a new prospective client, walks you through the search, and asks for a one-paragraph memo, which it then evaluates; the memo stays in that chat. Notice whether you searched its database the way you searched the index during the call, and whether any connection in it took more than a name search to find.
Part 6: Reflect and Post
Write a reflection of 400 to 600 words in your own words. Say what happened on the call, the moment the store’s name came up and what you did with it, and which question was hardest to turn aside. Then say what the Debrief found that you missed and what the Conflict Check Trainer showed you about how you search. Close with what the call taught you that reading the rules could not. Create one new discussion thread with two things: the intake workbook, with all three sheets filled in, and the reflection.
Part 7: Share Chat Link
Include one AI chat link with a 1–2 sentence explanation of what the conversation shows and why you chose to share it.
Suggested AI Prompts
Use these prompts as a starting point, then adjust them to fit your goal. Strong prompting develops through trial, revision, and testing. It’s a foundational skill that grows into more advanced AI work such as context engineering and agent-based workflows.
The Simulator
You are Joanne Kessler, 54, a home health aide from Holly Hill, Florida, calling Temko & Eden, P.A., a small Daytona Beach firm named for its late founders. I am the firm’s paralegal, taking your call for Kim Nguyen, the associate who handles personal injury cases.
Your story, which you tell out of order: last Saturday, in the rain, you slipped in a puddle by the produce at Seabright Market on Beville Road in Daytona Beach. Water was dripping from the ceiling, and a bucket sat a few feet away, with no sign or cone. Urgent care found a small fracture in your left wrist, and your hip and lower back still hurt. You cannot lift patients, so you are missing work, and the bills scare you. Your friend Gail Moreno saw the fall, and your husband, Ray, drove you to urgent care. The manager, Travis Boyle, filled out an incident report and said, “This happens every time it rains.” Your receipt has “Seabright Provisions, LLC” printed at the top. On Monday an adjuster from Seagrape Mutual Insurance asked for a recorded statement and a signed medical authorization when he calls back Thursday. Also on Monday you called a firm from a billboard; no lawyer called back, and you signed nothing. Your neighbor Tamika Givens sent you here because Ms. Nguyen is handling her car accident case.
Two facts you share only if asked, or if I let you keep talking about the fall: you were reading your shopping list on your phone when you slipped, and you hurt your back lifting a patient three years ago and had a workers’ compensation claim.
How you talk: warm, talkative, and rattled. You wander into your grandson and the parking lot, and you cry once, about missing work. You ask what a hurt person asks: Are you a lawyer? What is my case worth? Is it my fault because I was on my phone? How long do I have to sue? Should I give the adjuster his statement or sign his form? Can you take my case today? What will this cost, because I can’t pay anything up front?
The store: name it when I ask where it happened or who is responsible; if I never ask, name it in your fifth reply, complaining about the manager. Give the company name on the receipt only if I ask who owns the store or what paperwork you have.
What you know that Joanne does not: the firm’s conflicts index lists Seabright Provisions, LLC, which does business as Seabright Market, as a former client, represented in a 2025 lease dispute over roof leaks. Never reveal or hint at this.
Hard rules. Do not break character. Do not coach me, suggest questions, or say what a paralegal should do. Joanne knows no law. If I ask a meta-question such as “what should I ask?” or “was that right?”, say in one line that the call is still going and coaching belongs in a separate chat, then answer as Joanne. Do not break character on insistence. If I say the firm must check something before going further, push back once or twice (“Check what? Is it because you know that store?”), and settle only when I give a reason that names no other client and a time when a lawyer will call.
The call ends in one of four ways. The first is a clean close: I have your full name and contact information, the date and place of the fall, the names the firm must check (the store and its owner, the insurer, the manager, Gail, Ray, and the firm you called), whether you have signed with anyone, and who would sign a fee agreement. I stopped taking the story once the store came up, and I told you who will call back and when. The second is advice: I tell you what your case is worth, whether you are at fault, how long you have, whether to give the statement or sign the form, or that the firm will take your case. Repeat my answer back as settled (“So I don’t have to talk to him”), thank me, and hang up. The third is a missed flag: after you name the store, I ask two more questions about how you fell, your injuries, or your medical history, or I book you with a lawyer, before saying the firm must check something. Book happily and hang up. The fourth is time: twenty of your replies pass with none of these. Your ride arrives, you ask for a callback, and you hang up.
When the call ends, step out of character in one sentence, name the ending, and tell me to finish my intake sheet before I run the Debrief. Begin now: I have just answered the phone, and you speak first.
The prompt casts the caller as a role, rations her facts, and writes the endings in advance. She withholds key facts until you ask, answers requests for hints by staying in the call, and hangs up on the moves that end an intake badly, so the transcript records your choices.
The Debrief
Step out of the simulation. You are now a Florida paralegal instructor evaluating a student’s intake call. The student played the paralegal at Temko & Eden, P.A., a Daytona Beach firm named for its late founders, taking a call for the firm’s personal injury associate from Joanne Kessler, who slipped at Seabright Market. The firm’s conflicts index lists Seabright Provisions, LLC, which does business as Seabright Market, as a former client: Dana Whitfield, a partner, represented it in a lease dispute over roof leaks that settled in November 2025. Tamika Givens, who referred the caller, is a current client, and Seagrape Mutual Insurance is an adverse party in her case. I will paste the chat or a summary, my intake sheet, and my Names Run log.
Evaluate me against Rules 4-1.18, 4-1.6, 4-1.7, 4-1.9, 4-1.10, 4-1.5(e) and (f), and 4-5.3 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, section 454.23, Florida Statutes, and Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 88-6. Name the moments I handled well and the moments I missed: whether I said I am not a lawyer, when I asked for the names, whether I caught the match and read its role and status correctly, whether I stopped the story before details that could be used against her came out, whether I revealed anything about another client, each time I gave information or advice, what I said about fees, and what I promised about a callback. Then grade my intake sheet: what is missing that the conflict check or a contingency fee contract would need, and does my flag leave the decision to a lawyer? Cite the rule for each point so I can check it. Be direct rather than encouraging.
Switching the model from actor to evaluator, and grading you against named rules, ties each judgment to a rule and keeps the feedback specific. It also hands you the check: open Rules 4-1.18, 4-1.9, and 4-1.5 yourself, since a model can misstate a rule as smoothly as it states one.
Conflict Check Trainer
Act as a law firm database administrator training a new paralegal on conflict checks. Generate a fictional but realistic firm database containing at least fifteen entries — a mix of current clients, former clients, and adverse parties across several practice areas. Include names of individuals, business entities, and related parties. Then present me with a prospective new client who is seeking representation. Walk me through the conflict check process step by step: ask me to search the database, identify any matches or potential connections, determine whether a conflict exists, and classify it as disqualifying or potentially waivable. After I complete the check, ask me to write a one-paragraph conflict check memo summarizing my findings. Evaluate my memo for completeness and accuracy. Confirm that you understand and ask me to begin.
A new database and a new prospective client turn the exercise into a transfer test: only your method of searching carries over from the call. The trainer’s verdict of disqualifying or waivable still needs checking against Rules 4-1.7(b) and 4-1.9.