A government affairs team should not accept a new mandate simply because the client is commercially attractive or the policy issue fits the team's expertise. Before work begins, the team needs to know whether the assignment creates competing duties, risks confidential information crossing between matters, places a practitioner in an inappropriate relationship with a public official, or creates a representation problem that cannot be cured by disclosure alone. A conflict check is the operating control that turns those questions into a repeatable professional decision.
This is not the same as deciding whether a lobbying registration or disclosure filing is required. A conflict may exist even where no registration threshold is met, and a filing obligation may exist even where no client conflict is present. Teams should collect the facts required for counsel/compliance to determine legal applicability, while using a separate professional standard to decide whether the mandate can be accepted and under what conditions.
Separate four kinds of conflict
The phrase 'conflict of interest' is often used too broadly. For intake purposes, it is more useful to separate at least four categories. The first is client-to-client conflict: two clients may seek incompatible outcomes on the same law, procurement, regulatory decision or political process. The second is duty conflict: an individual's obligations to an employer, board, association, former client or other principal may constrain a new mandate. The third is public-integrity conflict: a relationship, gift, political activity or other circumstance may create a real or apparent sense of obligation involving an official. The fourth is information conflict: confidential or non-public information from one matter may be relevant to another.
These categories can overlap, but they require different remedies. Disclosure and written consent may address some client conflicts. A public-integrity problem involving an official may instead require recusal, reassignment or a prohibition on contact. Confidential information may remain protected regardless of client consent. A professional intake should identify the category before proposing a solution.
Start with a matter map, not a client name search
Searching the CRM for a matching company name is not enough. Government affairs conflicts arise from policy objectives, institutions, decision-makers, coalitions, subsidiaries and represented interests. The intake record should therefore describe the proposed matter in operational terms before comparing it with existing work.
- Legal client and any parent, subsidiary, coalition, association or intermediary involved.
- Policy objective and the specific decision, legislation, regulation, procurement or administrative process at issue.
- Government institutions, offices and officials expected to be approached.
- Other organisations whose interests the team is expected to advance or oppose.
- Funding source and any party with authority to direct, approve or terminate the work.
- Practitioners expected to work on the matter and their current or recent assignments.
- Confidential information likely to be received or generated.
- Known personal, political, professional or financial relationships relevant to the engagement.
Check substantive positions, not just industry sectors
Two companies in the same industry are not automatically conflicting clients, and two organisations in different industries can still pursue directly incompatible outcomes. The useful comparison is the policy position and decision being influenced. For example, one client may support a regulatory exemption while another seeks to eliminate it; one association may support a procurement model that another client's commercial strategy depends on changing.
The conflict database should therefore capture issue positions and decision targets in addition to client names. If the position is not yet known, record the uncertainty and delay assignment until the relevant facts are available. Do not rely on a broad engagement description such as 'government relations support' to establish compatibility.
Map the represented interest and source of instructions
The OECD's 2024 Recommendation on Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying and Influence emphasizes transparency about lobbying actors, financing and the interests being represented. The EU Transparency Register likewise requires registrants to identify the organisations they represent and the interests and objectives they promote. For conflict review, this means the formal contracting entity is only one part of the picture.
Record who is paying, who is directing the work, who benefits from the policy outcome and who will approve advocacy positions. This is particularly important for coalitions, trade associations, investors, subsidiaries and cross-border mandates. A conflict can be obscured when the team compares only the contracting entity while the real represented interests overlap with another matter.
Review relationships with public officials separately
A client conflict check should not be used as a substitute for public-integrity review. Canada's Lobbyists' Code of Conduct provides a clear example of a lobbyist-side rule that focuses on avoiding situations in which an official could reasonably be seen to have a sense of obligation toward the lobbyist. The Code addresses close relationships, political work, gifts and hospitality through specific rules. Those requirements are jurisdiction-specific, but the professional lesson is broader: a relationship with the official can create a problem even where the clients themselves are not adverse.
- Close personal, family, business or financial relationships with expected officials.
- Recent political or campaign work involving an official or associated political organisation.
- Gifts, hospitality, sponsored travel or other benefits involving the official.
- Prior employment or advisory relationships that could create a sense of obligation.
- Former public-service roles or post-employment restrictions affecting the practitioner.
- Any recipient-side ethics guidance already provided by the official or institution.
The applicable law or code may define these concepts differently. Teams should collect the facts required for counsel/compliance to determine applicability instead of converting a professional checklist into a universal legal rule.
Treat confidentiality as its own decision gate
A mandate can appear commercially compatible and still be professionally unworkable because of confidential information. The team should identify what information it already holds from existing or former clients and whether the new assignment would create pressure to use, reveal or compartmentalise that information.
Information barriers can be useful controls, but they should not be treated as automatic cures. Before relying on one, define who is screened, what systems and documents are restricted, how staffing is separated, who monitors compliance and what happens if the matters converge. If the team cannot explain the barrier in operational terms, it is not yet a control.
Use a three-stage decision model
- Clear: no material overlap is identified and no special condition is required beyond ordinary confidentiality and compliance controls.
- Conditional: the mandate may proceed only after specified measures such as written consent, practitioner recusal, information barriers, restricted contacts or enhanced review are documented.
- Decline or escalate: the team cannot adequately manage competing duties, confidentiality, public-integrity concerns or uncertainty without independent legal or ethics review.
The decision should be recorded with the facts reviewed, reviewer, date, conditions and trigger for re-review. A verbal 'looks fine' is not a durable conflict decision, particularly when the engagement later expands to a new jurisdiction, client affiliate, government institution or policy objective.
Make consent specific enough to be meaningful
Where consent is considered an appropriate control, it should identify the conflict being disclosed and the boundaries of the proposed representation. A generic clause buried in an engagement letter is weaker than a record that explains the competing interest, what information will remain protected, which practitioners may work on each matter and what contact restrictions apply.
Consent should also be treated as a professional control, not proof that every legal or ethical issue has been resolved. A jurisdiction-specific rule, public-official ethics regime or confidentiality obligation may not be waivable by private agreement.
Re-run the check when the facts change
Government affairs mandates change quickly. A conflict check performed at onboarding can become stale when a new client affiliate is added, a coalition changes membership, a bill is amended, a procurement enters a new stage, an official changes roles or the team is asked to adopt a different advocacy position. The conflict process should therefore have defined re-review triggers.
- New client, affiliate, coalition member or funding source.
- New or materially changed policy objective.
- New target institution or public official.
- Addition of a practitioner with relevant prior work or relationships.
- Receipt of material confidential information.
- Expansion into a new jurisdiction or regulatory regime.
- Change from internal advice to direct lobbying or public advocacy.
A practical new-mandate conflict checklist
- Define the represented interest, policy objective and decision target.
- Identify who funds, directs and benefits from the work.
- Search current and recent matters by issue, institution and position, not only client name.
- Compare the proposed mandate with existing client positions and contractual duties.
- Review practitioner relationships with relevant officials and institutions.
- Identify confidential-information overlap and assess whether separation is operationally credible.
- Document any consent, recusal, information barrier or contact restriction.
- Assign an independent reviewer for uncertain or high-risk matters.
- Record the decision and its conditions before substantive work starts.
- Set explicit triggers for re-running the check.
From intake form to professional standard
The OECD Recommendation calls for integrity standards and due-diligence measures around lobbying and influence. The EU Transparency Register's Code of Conduct requires accurate identification of represented interests and clients or members, while Canada's federal code illustrates how lobbyist conduct can create real or apparent public-integrity conflicts. None of these sources creates one universal client-conflict rule for every jurisdiction. Together, however, they support a clear professional principle: representation should be transparent, conflicts should be identified before influence activity begins, and controls should be documented rather than improvised.
For an IGAPA practitioner, a defensible conflict process is part of professional competence. The team should be able to show what facts were collected, what competing duties were considered, who made the decision and how confidentiality and public-integrity risks are controlled. That evidence is more meaningful than a checkbox stating that a conflict search was completed.
Review the IGAPA Global Code of Conduct
Explore IGAPA membership and accreditation
Sources
OECD: Recommendation of the Council on Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying and Influence - https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0379
European Transparency Register: Legal references and data protection - Code of conduct - https://transparency-register.europa.eu/legal-references-and-data-protection_en
European Transparency Register: Guidelines for applicants and registrants - https://transparency-register.europa.eu/guidelines_en
Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada: Lobbyists' Code of Conduct (2023) - https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/en/rules/the-lobbyists-code-of-conduct/lobbyists-code-of-conduct-2023/
Access Restricted Data
Full datasets and legislative appendices are available for Corporate Council members.