Opinion ID: 582893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Disinterestedness of the Debtor's Attorney

Text: 32 Shuck claims that the court should not have approved the representation of the debtor by Lampl, Sable. Shuck asserts that Lampl, Sable is an interested person because ithad represented Varah and one or more of the other Varah conspirators ... and Piedmont. 5 When a motion is made to disturb a client's choice of counsel, the court is required to carefully exercise its discretion and to weigh all of the competing factors involved. In re Iorizzo, 35 B.R. 465, 468 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1983); see Law Office of J.E. Losavio v. Trustee and Creditors' Committee (In re Neidig Corp. ), 113 B.R. 696, 698 (D. Colo. 1990). Section 327(a), concerning employment of professional persons, provides in pertinent part: 33 [T]he [debtor-in-possession], with the court's approval, may employ one or more attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons, that do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate, and that are disinterested persons, to represent or assist the [debtor-inpossession] in carrying out the [debtor-in-possession's] duties under this title. 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) (1988). 6 34 An attorney, however, should not be disqualifiedsolely because of such person's employment by or representation of a creditor, unless there is objection by another creditor, in which case the court shall disapprove such employment if there is an actual conflict of interest. 11 U.S.C. § 327(c) (1988); see In re Lee Way Holding Co., 102 B.R. 616 (S.D. Ohio 1988), modified on other grounds, No. C287-1283, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13,779 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 1989). Although Shuck did object to the representation, we cannot find that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by approving the representation while reserving its final ruling if an issue of actual conflict arose. Shuck had not produced any evidence of an actual conflict of interest. Furthermore, Lampl, Sable was familiar with the two file cabinets of documents involving the Seminole cases. (J.A., 80a). A change in attorneys would necessarily have resulted in enormous costs adverse to the interests of the estate. Without an actual conflict of interest, such a draconian measure would have been unwarranted.