How should a reputation management firm handle a conflict of interest?

A reputation firm that operates in a sector will eventually face the question of competing clients. How it handles conflicts of interest is a direct test of its integrity, and the responsible approach starts well before an engagement is signed.

Step 1: Screen for conflicts at intake

Before accepting any new engagement, a responsible firm reviews its existing client base for overlap. A potential conflict should be identified and addressed before work begins, not discovered midway through an engagement when relationships are already in place and sensitive information has been shared.

Step 2: Direct competitive conflict, decline

Where two clients are direct competitors seeking to shape their relative standing, the firm cannot serve both honestly. The only ethical path is to decline the conflicting engagement, even at the cost of revenue. Accepting a directly conflicting engagement without disclosure puts fees ahead of fiduciary care and is not compatible with the client trust that makes reputation work possible.

Declining earns trust. A firm that turns down revenue to protect a client relationship demonstrates, concretely, that it treats client interests as primary.

Step 3: Adjacent work, information barriers and dual approval

Where the overlap is adjacent rather than directly competitive, the firm may be able to proceed, but only under two conditions:

1. Both clients are informed of the overlapping engagement and what it entails.
2. Both clients explicitly approve, with full understanding of what information-barrier protocols are in place to keep their interests separated.

Information barriers, sometimes called ethical walls, restrict which team members can access which client’s work, preventing cross-contamination of strategy or confidential information. They do not eliminate the conflict; they manage it within boundaries that both clients have accepted.

The underlying principle

Client trust comes first. A firm that accepts conflicting engagements without disclosure or without proper barriers is not a trustworthy steward of reputation work. We screen for conflicts at intake and decline or wall off engagements accordingly, with transparency to all clients involved.