This is an appeal by Charles Roark, Milton “Mickey” Duntley, and Ernie Lopez (collectively “Appellants”) from an order disqualifying their counsel, Mary Stilling-er, from representing multiple Appellants. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held that: (1) Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.06 gave the Government standing to challenge Stillinger’s potential conflict of interest, and authorized the court to eonsider the merits of that challenge; (2) it had “anomalous jurisdiction” to entertain the merits of the Government’s Motion to Disqualify; and (3) at a minimum, a senous potential for conflict existed, and therefore Stillinger was disqualified from “simultaneously or serially” representing Appellants.

On appeal, Appellants contend that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Government’s Motion to Disqualify. We agree with Appellants, 1 and therefore VACATE the district court’s order disqualifying Stillinger.

I. BACKGROUND

For more than three years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), advised by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas, has been investigating numerous individuals suspected of federal public corruption, fraud, and money laundering. Judge Frank Montalvo of the Western District of Texas authorized ^taps and issued search warrants in connection with the FBI’s investigation. None of the wiretaps or search warrants was issued directly against Appellants; however, communications by Duntley and Lopez (not to each other) were intercepted by the wiretaps. All proceedings resulting from the FBI’s investigation were docketed under Cause No. EP-06-CR-1369-FM (“Cause No. 1369”) and overseen by Judge Montalvo,

The FBI named Duntley, Lopez, and Roark as targets in its public corruption investigation. As a result of the FBI investigation, Appellants all retained Mary Stillinger as their attorney. On June 4, 2007, the Government moved to disqualify Stillinger from jointly representing Appellants in the ongoing public corruption investigation. The Government argued that *184 Stillinger’s joint representation presented an actual or serious potential conflict of interest and therefore violated Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.06. 2 The Government filed its motion under Cause No. 1369, which the district court created for all criminal proceedings resulting from the FBI’s investigation. As of the date of oral argument in this case, the Government has not charged Appellants with any crimes. Further, the Government has not initiated any judicial proceedings against them, served them with process, brought them before a grand jury, or otherwise brought them before the court in Cause No. 1369.

Stillinger filed a Response to Motion to Disqualify, which opposed her disqualification and moved to strike the Government’s Motion to Disqualify from the record with leave to re-file under a separate, miscellaneous cause number. Stillinger contended that the disqualification motion was prop-erjy the subject of a separate proceeding,

The district court found that Comment 17 to Rule 1.06 “clearly [gave] the Government standing to alert the Court to conflicts of interest and similarly authorizefd] the Court to act to remedy any such situation.” 3 The district court also found it had “anomalous jurisdiction,” which gave it the “authority to entertain the merits of matters arising from federal criminal investigations under its supervision, regardless of whether the targets of such investi *185 gation [were] actually under indictment.” 4 The district court then considered the merits of the alleged conflict and granted the Government’s Motion to Disqualify. It also granted Stillinger’s motion to strike and directed the clerk to create a new, miscellaneous cause number (EP-07-CR1761-FM (“Cause No. 1761”)), transfer the court’s disqualification order and all related pleadings to the new cause number, and assign the new cause number to the distriet court. 5 The order disqualifying Stillinger resolved all matters pending in Cause No. 1761, and this appeal was taken from the order entered in Cause No. 1761.

II. DISCUSSION

, , . . ppe ate uris iction

The Government challenges the Court’s authority to grant relief to Appellants on direct appeal, although it concedes that this Court has mandamus jurisdietion.5 6 “This [C]ourt necessarily has the inherent jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.” Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Accounts v. Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 576 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction over “all final decisions of the district courts ... except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 373, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981) (quoting § 1291). A final judgment is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 203, 119 S.Ct. 1915, 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999) (quoting Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 521-22, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 100 L.Ed.2d 517 (1988); Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945)).

Stillinger’s disqualification was the only matter the district court transferred from Cause No. 1369 to Cause No. 1761. When the district court entered its order granting the Government’s Motion to Disqualify, there were no remaining matters to decide under Cause No. 1761, leaving nothing more for the district court to do other than execute the judgment. Ordinarily, a dis-qualification motion is not a final order because it is entered in an ongoing ease with other matters yet to be resolved. Because of the relatively unique circumstances of this case, nothing further remained pending in Cause No. 1761 (or even Cause No. 1369) with respect to these *186 defendants or their counsel. Accordingly, under the particular situation presented here, we hold that the district court’s disqualification order is final for purposes of § 1291. Because this is an appeal from a final decision, and direct review by the Supreme Court is not available, we have appellate jurisdiction under § 1291.

B. The District Court’s Jurisdiction

mi , . . , , , , , „ The district court asserted two bases for ... . ,. ,, .. . its jurisdiction over the Motion to Disquali- , ,, ., , , íy: (1) inherent authority to regulate at- , , ^ x torneys conflicts oí interest, and (2) ano- ....... ,TT ’ . malous jurisdiction. We will address m , , , , , . n ,, . . , turn each purported basis for the district . court s jurisdiction.

, _ , ...... 1. Inherent Authority

The Government argues that the district court had “inherent jurisdiction” to entertain its Motion to Disqualify. The Government relies heavily on Woods v. Covington County Bank, 537 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1976), where we stated that “a [d]is-trict [c]ourt is obliged to take measures against unethical conduct occurring in connection with any proceeding befare it. Id. at 810 (emphasis added). Stillinger s potential conflict of interest arguably arose out of a pending criminal investigation furthered by court-ordered warrants and wiretaps. Because of the district court’s “supervisory role” in the investigation, the Government contends that the district , court had jurisdiction to exercise its inher- . ,, .. „ , ent authority over Stillinger s alleged conflict oí interest.

Appellants argue that inherent authority does not give a court jurisdiction over individuals not otherwise before it. In other words, a district court’s inherent authority is properly exercised only when the court is acting in a proceeding already pending before it.

The United States Supreme Court has explained inherent judicial power as follows:

It has long been understood that “[c]er-tain implied powers must necessarily re-suit to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution”____ For this reason, “Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their . , . . , ., . , presence, and submission to their lawful . , „ mandates. These powers are gov- , , ,. , , erned ... by the control necessarily . , . , , „ . vested m courts to manage them own , affairs so as to achieve the orderly and .... ... „ „ expeditious disposition of cases,

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (cita- ... ’ ur> tions omitted). Because of them very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Id. at 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123.

Within the scope of inherent power is a federal court’s authority “to determine who may practice before [it] and to reguiate the conduct of those who do.” United states v. Dinitz, 538 F.2d 1214, 1219 (5th Cir. 1976). “Since attorneys are officers of the courts before which they appear, such courts are necessarily vested with the authority, within certain limits, to control attorneys’ conduct.” Id. at 1219 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Gopman, 531 F.2d 262, 266 (5th Cir. 1976).

,Tr 1 . . ,, We have recognized a district courts . , , inherent authority to take measures . , , „ . , . . against conflicts oí interest when they . „. ,. ... .. arise m connection with any proceeding before it.” Woods, 537 F.2d at 810. For example, in In re American Airlines, 972 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1992), the district court refused to disqualify American Airlines’ former counsel from representing its competitor in antitrust litigation against it. 972 F.2d at 608. On appeal, this court *187 recognized that if American Airlines’ former counsel committed an ethical violation by representing its adversary in the underlying antitrust litigation, then the district court was obligated to take measures against that conduct. Id. at 611. In Gop-man, we recognized a district court’s inherent authority to regulate conflicts of interest beyond the trial setting, holding that “as an incident of [its] supervisory power, a [district] court has jurisdiction to discipline an attorney whose unethical conduct relates to a grand jury proceeding within that court’s control.” In re Gop-man, 531 F.2d at 266.

We have never held that a district court ., . , may exercise its inherent authority to reg- . , ... , ... , . . ... ulate conflicts of interests arising in the . . , . , , . .... isolated context of an ongoing criminal in- , ,, T , n . , vestigation where the only relationship to , ... „ . the court is its issuance of warrants and , . . , , wwetap authorizations related to targets not represented by the counsel in question. We decline to so hold in this case. The proper exercise of inherent authority presumes an underlying proceeding within the court’s control, a reason separate from the alleged conflict of interest.

In the present case, no such underlying proceeding exists. Neither Stillinger nor Appellants have ever appeared, nor have they been asked to appeal-, before the district court in any criminal proceeding affiliated or allegedly arising from Cause No. 1369. Stillinger’s appearance was sought in Cause No. 1369, which was severed into Cause No. 1761, only in connection with the Government’s Motion to Disqualify, no other matter. Appellants have not been charged with a crime, nor have grand jury proceedings been initiated against them, nor have they been called to appear as grand-jury witnesses. Stilling-er’s alleged potential conflict of interest existed only in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation monitored and supervised by the FBI, which is independent and separate from any proceeding occurring before the district court. Accordingly, the district court’s inherent authority was an improper basis to assert jurisdiction over the Government’s Motion to Disqualify.

We understand the district judge’s laudable concern about potential conflicts of interest in an ongoing criminal investigation. However, this holding does not leave the district court or the Government’s attorneys completely powerless to act. Lawyers have an obligation to report violations of “applicable rules of professional conduct ttat faise[ \ a substantial question as to that lawyer s honesty, trustworthiness or „ J , fitness as a lawyer to the appropriate ..... . disciplinary authority. TDRPC 8.03(a). „ ,. ,, ... ... , Both the State Bar of Texas and the West- ... . • . «m i ern District of Texas have grievance proee- . . , ,, , , , dures whereby an attorney can be charged ^ unethical conduct and appropriate proceedings under the applicable rules can transpire Tex. Rs. Discipiinary P. 1.02, 210-316; reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G app. A-1 (Vernon Supp. 1997); W.D. Tex.R AT-7

2. Anomalous Jurisdiction

Appellants contend that anomalous jurisdiction does not exist to disqualify counsel and has only been invoked in cases involving the seizure of property by federal agents. Even if anomalous jurisdiction could be invoked, Appellants argue that the prerequisite factors for anomalous jurisdietion could not be satisfied by the facts surrounding this case. The Government concedes that anomalous jurisdiction d°es n°f aPPfy t° the present case, and argues that the district court merely “intended to invoke the inherent authority from which anomalous jurisdiction springs.

Anomalous jurisdiction is one basis for a court’s inherent authority to act. In re *188 Grand Jury Proceedings, 115 F.3d 1240, 1246 (5th Cir. 1997). It is defined as a distriet court’s “power to order the suppression or return of unlawfully seized property even though no indictment. has been returned and thus no criminal prosecution is yet in existence.” /¿(quoting Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1974)). The present ease does not involve unlawfully seized property. Considering both the facts of this case and the Government’s concession on this issue, we hold that the district court did not have anomalous jurisdiction to entertain the Government’s Motion to Disqualify.

III. CONCLUSION

We hold that neither the district court’s inherent authority nor anomalous jurisdiction were appropriate jurisdictional bases for the district court to entertain the Government’s Motion to Disqualify. No other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction has been raised. We VACATE the district court’s order disqualifying Stillinger and REMAND with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.