Plaintiff's non-dischargeability action was dismissed for failure to file the pretrial order, and plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, arguing excusable neglect under Bankruptcy Rule 9024. In finding no excusable neglect, the court noted that cumulative procedural and substantive deficiencies in the case were evidence of, at best, failure to attend to detail and, at worst, a cavalier attitude toward the court. Therefore, plaintiff's motion was denied with respect to its 11 U.S.C. § 523 cause of action. The court considered the problems with plaintiff's 11 U.S.C. § 727 action to be much more serious, noting that plaintiff's counsel had obtained the information in support of the claims against debtor by virtue of his previous role as trustee of debtor's estate. Counsel resigned as the trustee and filed plaintiff's complaint against debtor on the same day, which was also the last day for filing objections to discharge. The court found that acting as the trustee and representing a creditor of the estate was clearly a conflict of interest, and that the conflict was not cured by counsel's withdrawal as trustee. The court granted the motion to reinstate the § 727 cause of action, directed the US Trustee to take steps to ensure proper administration of the estate, and directed the chapter 7 trustee that had been appointed after plaintiff's counsel resigned to either schedule a pre-trial conference on the § 727 claim, or move to dismiss the adversary proceeding, within twenty days.