NEW YORK, Aug 11 (Reuters) - Patton Boggs has asked a federal court twice now to find it doesn't have a conflict of interest representing Ecuadorean clients in the ongoing and massive environmental litigation battle with Chevron.

Things aren't going very well.

Last fall, Patton Boggs filed a declaratory judgment action against Chevron and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, its law firm in the matter. As it happens, Patton Boggs owns a lobbying group that worked with Chevron in the past. That fact, the firm argued in its suit, shouldn't disqualify it from representing Ecuadoreans suing the energy giant. What's more, the firm charged that Chevron and Gibson Dunn were interfering with Patton Bogg's contract its Ecuadorean clients.

The complaints didn't resonate with Washington, D.C. federal judge Henry Kennedy, who dismissed the case in April. Among other findings, Judge Kennedy said Patton Boggs hadn't presented any legal controversy ripe for ruling. He also complained that Patton Boggs was asking the court "to decipher and apply the law of every jurisdiction where Chevron might seek" to disqualify the firm.

Shortly after the court's April decision, Patton Boggs filed a motion requesting that the court reconsider the dismissal and filed a second suit against the same parties. In July, Kennedy denied that motion, finding that the firm did not demonstrate the first decision was in "clear error." The firm's attempts to make new arguments about the standards for which its contractual interference claims should be judged were "a day late and a dollar short," Kennedy said.

Now, the judge has slapped Patton Boggs again, dismissing the second lawsuit and calling it "near-identical" to the first. Kennedy rejected four out of five claims, saying the court had already ruled on them in the first lawsuit.

The single new claim that Kennedy agreed to address dealt with new allegations of tortious interference by Gibson Dunn and Chevron. That interference was preventing the Ecuadorean plaintiffs from paying Patton Boggs' legal fee, the firm alleged.

But even that claim didn't fly with Kennedy, who said Patton Boggs didn't provide enough information connecting the non-payment with interference by Gibson Dunn and Chevron. "If Patton Boggs has any factual basis for that conclusion, it does not appear in the complaint," Kennedy wrote.

In dismissing the first set of claims, Kennedy used particularly harsh language, noting that Patton Boggs drew "an incorrect conclusion in fact and premise." Kennedy also said he had already explained that the facts were "simply irrelevant" to the court's determination and chided the firm for arguing that the court did not address its tortious interference claims under New Jersey law. The court used District of Columbia law, he said, "because that's what Patton Boggs did."

Theodore Boutros, counsel for Chevron and Gibson Dunn, said, via email, that he hoped "Patton Boggs will get the message and cease its frivolous campaign to deflect attention from its clients' fraudulent litigation against Chevron."

But Patton Boggs isn't giving up. Last week, the firm filed its notice that it will appeal the court's April and July decisions to a U.S. Court of Appeals, and Patton Boggs managing partner James Tyrrell said the firm plans to appeal Monday's decision as well.

The opinion issued Monday was in the case Patton Boggs v. Chevron et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 11-00799.

For Patton Boggs: Charles Talisman of Patton Boggs.

For defendants: Theodore Boutrous, Thomas Hungar, John Bash, Randy Mastro and Andrea Neuman of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

(Reporting by Erin Geiger Smith)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal