THE ETHICS OF REPRESENTING DEBTORS AND CREDITORS IN BANKRUPTCY

the motion -- at the beginning of the case or after an adverse decision was rendered.⁵⁴⁶

1. The same disqualifying circumstance, i.e. the judge agreeing to join DIP counsel's law firm shortly after entering the challenged rulings, was held by the Fifth Circuit to result in harmless error with respect to one ruling and reversible error as to another. A summary judgment on allowability of damages was held to leave (1) little risk of injustice to the parties because it was reviewed de novo, (2) little injustice in other cases, especially given a caution to other judges contemplating retirement, and the status of the plan, and (3) an appellate ruling of judicial violation of §455 was deemed to restore some of any public confidence lost as a result of the violation.⁵⁴⁷ On the other hand, the risk of injustice to the parties was held greater with respect to a claim estimation order, because it is reviewable on an abuse of discretion standard. And the risk of undermining public confidence in the legal system was deemed
2. greater in such a discretionary matter, where the public should trust that the parties' welfare will take priority over convenience or ease of disposing of the parties' claims. Injustice to other Continental creditors from delay at that point in the case would be minimal due to a plan, and the increased risk of injustice to the parties and undermining public confidence in the judicial process "far outweighs any decrease in the risk of injustice to other parties in denying relief from the bankruptcy court's estimation order."¹ The court remanded an order estimating claims for determination by a new bankruptcy judge.²
1. An order denying a motion to disqualify or recuse a judge is interlocutory and not immediately appealable.³ Appellate review of such a ruling may be sought by a mandamus petition, where the standard of review is a "clear and indisputable" right to relief.⁴

⁵ See e.g. Baron & Budd, P.C.v. Unsecured Asbestos Claimants, 321 B.R. 147 (D. N.J. 2005) (regulation of professional responsibility extends to lawyers for creditors as well as court-approved lawyers); In re Cash Media Systems, Inc., 326 B.R. 655 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2005); In re Disciplinary Proceedings, 282

B.R. 79 (1^st Cir. BAP 2002); In re Creative Restaurant Management, Inc., 139 B.R. 902 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1992); In re Lee , 94 B.R. 172, 177178 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1988); In re Glenn Electric Sales Corp., 99 B.R. 596, 598 (D. N.J. 1988); In re Star Broadcasting, 81 B.R. 835, 839 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1988); In re Kendavis Industries International, Inc., 91

B.R. 742, 754 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1988); In re Stamford Color Photo, Inc., 98 B.R. 135, 136 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1989); In re Taylor Transport, Inc., 28 B.R. 832 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1983); In re Roberts, 46 B.R. 815 (Bankr. D. Utah 1985), modified 75 B.R. 402 (D. Utah 1987). But c.f.