The forensics site promises a conflict screen before anything else — services.intro says "Conflicts are screened before anything else," and /scope states the rule above the form: no attorney-client relationship, no conflicts check performed yet.
That screen currently has no documented step for the expert's own investment holdings. Rob holds seed positions in at least seven entities per the LinkedIn record — Oakland Roots Sports Club, Lucia, HumanQ, Illoominus, Areto Labs, Hustle Fund Angel Squad, and Vitalize Angels (2023–2025). Angel holdings are discoverable, and an undisclosed position in a party, a competitor, or an investor in a party is the kind of thing that surfaces on cross rather than in advance.
What this issue tracks: add an explicit holdings check to the introductory-call conflict step, so the portfolio is screened against the parties named in the matter before an engagement opens.
Two open decisions that belong with it:
- Whether the holdings are published on the expert profile page as a transparency measure, or kept internal and screened privately. Both are defensible; the site currently does neither, which is the state worth ending.
- Where the canonical list lives, since it changes. A page that goes stale is worse than no page.
Related: the expert profile work at /experts/, which is where a published version would live if that is the decision.
The forensics site promises a conflict screen before anything else —
services.introsays "Conflicts are screened before anything else," and/scopestates the rule above the form: no attorney-client relationship, no conflicts check performed yet.That screen currently has no documented step for the expert's own investment holdings. Rob holds seed positions in at least seven entities per the LinkedIn record — Oakland Roots Sports Club, Lucia, HumanQ, Illoominus, Areto Labs, Hustle Fund Angel Squad, and Vitalize Angels (2023–2025). Angel holdings are discoverable, and an undisclosed position in a party, a competitor, or an investor in a party is the kind of thing that surfaces on cross rather than in advance.
What this issue tracks: add an explicit holdings check to the introductory-call conflict step, so the portfolio is screened against the parties named in the matter before an engagement opens.
Two open decisions that belong with it:
Related: the expert profile work at
/experts/, which is where a published version would live if that is the decision.