Professional services

Law firms, consultancies, accountants and advisors need a repeatable way to screen clients and third parties at intake - and to keep consistent records when engagements are reviewed internally or discussed with the client.

The problem

Intake often happens under time pressure across partners and practice groups. Without a shared tool, screening quality varies, no-match results go undocumented, and it is difficult to show what was checked when a conflict, audit or client query arises later.

Who you typically screen

• Prospective and existing clients at engagement intake
• Beneficial owners, directors and related parties where known
• Counterparties, joint-venture partners and other third parties on a matter
• Suppliers and experts engaged for client work
• Entities named in transaction or dispute documentation

Workflow in this context

At intake or when a new party appears on a matter, screen the name against sanctions and related risk sources, investigate matches, and record the decision in a Checklist Report that colleagues can reuse. Shared organisation workspaces help teams keep one evidence trail rather than scattered personal searches. Monitoring covers ongoing clients where list changes would matter.

Capabilities and sources that matter here

• Fast name screening across global sanctions and risk sources
• Optional PEP screening as a separate risk category for enhanced due diligence workflows
• Consistent Checklist Report records for internal review and file notes
• Shared workspaces for documented decisions across the firm or practice group
• Exportable PDF/CSV evidence when clients or auditors request proof of checks

See the platform workflow, pricing for shared workspaces, and about PEP screening.

What Sanctions Checklist supports - and what still requires judgement

The platform supports screening, match investigation and documented decisions. It does not replace conflict checks, AML programme design, client acceptance policy or legal advice on whether you may act. False positives still need human review; ownership and jurisdictional analysis may require additional tools or counsel.