The issue before the court was whether the facts alleged by debtor's counsel constituted "extraordinary circumstances" sufficient to warrant nunc pro tunc retroactive approval of counsel's appointment, by approximately six months, back to the date of the petition filing. Counsel did not timely move for appointment as debtor's counsel because: the filing of the case was an emergency; counsel was unusually busy with other cases the week before and two weeks after the debtor's chapter 11 petition was filed; and a much relied upon secretary/paralegal was unexpectedly absent for one day. In the Tenth Circuit, nunc pro tunc approval of the employment of debtor's counsel is only appropriate "in the most extraordinary circumstances" and, therefore, simple neglect is insufficient. Land v. First Nat'l Bank of Alamosa (In re Land), 943 F.2d 1265, 1267-68 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, nunc pro tunc approval has been limited to cases where the delay in seeking approval is either due to hardship beyond the professional's control, or to the action of another whose failure was beyond the professional' s control. The court concluded that counsel failed to prove extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant nunc pro tunc approval.