Key Takeaways: Intapp Webinar on Strategic Conflicts Management Strategies
As competitive pressure, PE investment and new service-line expansion intensify across consulting, risk leaders and operators urged firms to formalize conflicts-of-interest programs that protect reputation and accelerate deal velocity—rather than stall it—during Consulting Magazine's Scale with Confidence: The Strategic Conflicts Framework for High-Growth Firms webcast sponsored by Intapp, Dec. 11, 2025.
From PE-fueled expansion to "lumpy" M&A integration, panelists for the webcast offered a pragmatic playbook for moving from ad hoc email checks to repeatable, data-driven conflicts management. The discussion emphasized early screening, harmonized data, and clear policies to more safely enable sustainable scaling.
The archived webcast can be viewed on demand here.
Program Overview
- Format: Expert panel discussion with live Q&A
- Through-lines: Standardized conflicts programs; perceived versus actual conflicts; data and Ultimate Beneficial Ownership (UBO) transparency; integrating checks into the sales cadence
Key Takeaways
- Conflicts is a growth system, not a brake: Integrated, early screening complements selling and shortens time-to-greenlight.
- Perceived versus actual matters: Midmarket firms must document "why not a true conflict" when they can't swap benches like mega-firms.
- Data is the linchpin: External ownership and sanctions data (e.g., UBO, PE parents) minimizes intake drag and late-stage disengagements.
- Build the platform early: Roles, harmonized client/entity data, and a repeatable playbook make M&A integration and scale possible.
- Sell the "case for change" internally: Map first-, second- and third-order impacts of a miss to align GCs, CROs and CFOs.
- Jey Purushotham, Practice Group Leader, Compliance Solutions, Intapp
- Joe Embleton, Practice Director, INOUTSOURCE
- Andrew Margolies, Founder, Margolies Technologies
The panelists noted growth patterns are changing the risk calculus. With private equity capital enabling "lumpy" scale—multiple acquisitions and rapid entry into new geographies, verticals and alliances—manual, partner-memory-based checks quickly break down.
"Each time a firm doubles in size or acquires a peer, you inherit a whole new book of business—and a whole new conflicts surface," Margolies said. "If you miss something, the damage can be financial, legal and reputational—and it can ripple into referrals and future work."
Beyond clear "actual" conflicts, the group emphasized the prevalence—and business impact—of perceived conflicts. Larger firms can sometimes neutralize perception risk by swapping personnel or erecting engagement barriers. Midmarket firms often can't redeploy benches as easily, so meticulous documentation becomes essential to explain why a perceived conflict is not a true conflict and to satisfy client and internal control reviews.
Embleton underscored the need for foundational readiness well before a surge in M&A. "Build the platform—roles, responsibilities, harmonized data and repeatable processes," he said. "If you wait until you're integrating multiple acquisitions, you'll be exception-handling at scale."
The panel pushed back on the notion that conflicts programs inherently slow sales. The key, they said, is integrating checks within the go-to-market rhythm, eliminating manual data entry, and triggering searches as early as opportunity creation. "Done right, conflicts complement selling," Margolies noted. "You screen as you advance the deal and get to a clear, actionable answer fast."
Data quality featured prominently, particularly around ultimate beneficial ownership (UBO). Panelists recommended leveraging external data sources—such as D&B feeds integrated into conflicts platforms—to reduce friction, limit lengthy intake questionnaires and avoid late-stage disengagement if sanctions or ownership red flags emerge after project kick-off.
Culturally, consulting firms lack the regulatory scaffolding that shapes risk disciplines in audit-focused accounting firms, panelists said. That makes internal "case for change" storytelling critical. Purushotham suggested mapping the first-, second- and third-order impacts of a missed conflict—lost fees, damaged relationships, reduced referrals (including from partner law firms), and reputational spread via lateral attorney movement—to align GCs and CROs with CFOs and commercial leaders.
Near-term steps for firms not expecting near-term PE infusions but seeing steady growth include:
- Define what constitutes a conflict for your firm, across client-client, alliance and personnel dimensions.
- Inventory data sources (CRM, engagement systems, partner/portfolio entities) and harmonize naming for reliable search.
- Document policies and procedures for identification, escalation and clearance—including how to handle perceived versus actual conflicts.
- Integrate conflicts screening with CRM to auto-trigger early checks and minimize manual entry.
Establish education and communications so MDs understand how and when to escalate, and what "good" looks like.
Realistically, Embleton acknowledged, any new program introduces short-term friction. "Be transparent—it may slow you down at first," he said. "But if you remove manual steps and integrate upstream, the process gets faster, more reliable and more scalable."
Wrap-up
Taken together, the panel's message was clear: a modern conflicts program should be a growth enabler, not a gatekeeper. By defining what "conflict" means for the firm, harmonizing data and ownership information, integrating early-stage checks into CRM, and documenting how perceived conflicts are resolved, leaders can speed deal cycles while protecting reputation and client trust.
For a deeper dive into the playbook, including practical steps, data strategies and change-management tips shared by the speakers, watch the full webcast on demand here.