Client Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest Assessment for Professional ServicesThe breach is almost never a leak. It is a lift, a screenshot and a favour.

Methodology: Forty original exercises across six formats: fourteen keyed applications, seven select-every-that-applies exercises, seven keyed claims, five matching exercises, four ordering exercises and three most-and-least forced choices. There is deliberately no situational judgement item in this instrument: the declared response instruction is knowledge and rule application throughout, one instruction for the whole form, because mixing what a person would do with what the duty requires produces a score that means neither. Construct statement: it measures whether somebody applies a professional confidentiality and conflicts duty in the ordinary situations where it is inconvenient - internal requests, personal interests, information that has already moved, and barriers and consent. It does not state the regulations of any jurisdiction, does not certify anybody to practise, is not legal advice, and does not replace the code that applies where the respondent works. Scoring is a reliability-weighted composite (C13). Each of the four parts is chance-corrected against its own items' authored answer priors, McDonald's omega is estimated for each part from its exercise count and a stated assumed inter-item correlation, and reliability weighting is applied ONLY if the omega spread across the parts exceeds .15; below that the composite uses unit weights and the report prints that this was a decision rather than a default, because hand-tuned weights below that spread are fitting noise. The composite carries a standard error of measurement and a ninety-five per cent band drawn on the page, and any part whose omega falls under .70 carries a three-way placement instead of a number. Constructs and sources: the professional duty of confidentiality and its survival beyond the retainer; the need-to-know principle and least-privilege access (Saltzer and Schroeder); conflicts of interest as situations rather than conduct, and the limits of informed consent where duties are directly opposed (Davis and Stark on conflict of interest in the professions); information barriers as a control requiring access restriction, ownership and a record rather than an undertaking; incident response and the partial first report (the NIST computer security incident handling guidance); de-identification and the re-identification of narrative material (Sweeney; Ohm on broken promises of anonymisation); the psychology of self-serving bias in judging one's own conflicts (Moore, Loewenstein, Tanlu and Bazerman on disclosure and moral licensing); and item-writing guidance from Haladyna, Downing and Rodriguez. All items are original works written for this instrument. No professional body's course, examination or scheme is reproduced, named or implied, and no accreditation or endorsement by any regulator, law society or institute exists or is suggested.