The bankruptcy court has continuing authority to revisit an order employing a particular attorney to represent a debtor. Every potential conflict must be disclosed, and upon finding that counsel has failed to comply, the bankruptcy judge can impose various remedies, including disqualification of counsel and the denial of fees. By failing to timely disclose and secure prior judicial approval of withdrawals from the pre-petition retainer and subsequent replenishment by the Debtor, Miller flouted a lawful order of the bankruptcy court and thereby frustrated its ability to oversee the bankruptcy proceedings. On these facts, we cannot say that the bankruptcy court's decision was clearly erroneous. Costs to appellees .
Disclosure is required by the Bankruptcy Code and rules.
Judge Feeney explicitly required disclosure in her order. See Casco Northern Bank v. DN Assocs. Miller made his first draw from the retainer before Judge Feeney had issued the disclosure order. But, Miller failed to disclose that withdrawal even after the order had issued, and in so doing, violated the terms of the judge's command.