Lawyer disqualification is a tricky concept. Sometimes it is viewed as a tactical and harassing litigation weapon that robs clients of their trusted counsel of choice. Yet, on the flip side, courts can use disqualification as an effective remedy for dealing with lawyer misconduct.

The case, Dynamic 3D Geosolutions v. Schlumberger, is up on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Texas, and the appeal centers on the issue of lawyer disqualification. The Federal Circuit must review the decision of U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, who was the trial judge in the lawsuit, which focused on a dispute over a geological modeling patent. In his order, issued on March 31, 2015, Yeakel held that Dynamic 3D Geosolutions' in-house and outside counsel should be disqualified and that Dynamic Geo's case should be dismissed without prejudice.

According to the factual background of the case set out in Judge Yeakel's order, plaintiff Dynamic Geo is a shell company of Acacia Research Group, a patent licensing and enforcement company, formed by Acacia for the purpose of filing lawsuits on U.S. Patent No. 7,986,319 (“the '319 patent”) against companies in the energy market. Acacia acquired the '319 patent, entitled “Method and System for Dynamic Three-Dimensional Geological Interpretation and Modeling,” from Austin Geomodeling Inc. on Nov. 18, 2013. Dynamic Geo was formed on Dec. 6, 2013, and acquired the '319 patent from Acacia on Dec. 9, 2013.