W&T Offshore, Inc. v. Endurance Assurance Corporation, 4:24-cv-03047

W&T Offshore, Inc. and W&T Energy VI, LLC ("W&T") are energy producers who previously retained law firm Vinson & Elkins, LLP ("V&E") for corporate legal work from 2014 to 2023, including finance and credit negotiations.
V&E never drafted, commented on, or advised W&T about the Indemnity Agreement at issue or the related surety bonds.
W&T brought suit against Endurance Assurance Corporation and Lexon Insurance Co. (collectively the "Sompo Sureties") over a dispute about collateral demands under an Indemnity Agreement related to surety bonds for offshore decommissioning.
Sompo Sureties retained attorneys who joined V&E after the litigation began; V&E implemented an ethical wall to separate the new team from its prior W&T matters.
W&T moved to disqualify V&E from representing the Sompo Sureties, arguing conflicts due to V&E's prior access to confidential W&T information.
The court considered briefing, declarations, and argument, and applied Texas and ABA ethical rules and federal disqualification standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should V&E be disqualified due to a substantial relationship?	Prior corporate finance representation is closely related to current indemnity dispute.	Prior representation was general corporate work, not related to indemnity agreement or surety bonds.	No substantial relationship shown. Motion denied.
Does V&E possess relevant confidential information?	V&E had access to W&T's confidential financial/bonding info, risky for current case.	No specific confidential info relevant to the dispute identified; ethical wall in place.	No evidence of relevant confidential info presented.
Is the ethical wall effective to cure any potential conflict?	Ethical wall does not assure W&T’s information is protected.	Wall prevents any access or communication between relevant teams/attorneys.	Ethical wall sufficient based on evidence presented.
Has W&T met its burden under court precedent?	Generalized assertions of relatedness/confidentiality suffice.	Specific, detailed evidence of overlap/confidential harm is required and lacking.	Burden not met; motion denied.

In re Dresser Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1992) (federal standards govern motions to disqualify)
FDIC v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 1304 (5th Cir. 1995) (disqualification guided by state and national ethical standards)
In re Am. Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1992) (substantial relationship test and burdens of proof for disqualification)
Duncan v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 646 F.2d 1020 (5th Cir. 1981) (specific and detailed showing required for substantial relationship)
NCNB Tex. Nat. Bank v. Coker, 765 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. 1989) (outlining substantial relationship requirement for attorney disqualification)