The district court agreed with the bankruptcy court's conclusion that law firm's problems, such as a demanding workload, neglect, absence of an employee, and oversight, did not satisfy the standard of "extraordinary circumstances" under a straightforward reading of controlling law. Therefore, law firm's failure to file a timely motion for its appointment as debtor's counsel due to such circumstances cannot be excused as, "extraordinary circumstances" that might justify nunc pro tunc approval of its appointment. Accordingly, there was "no substantial basis for disagreement" with the bankruptcy court's order, and law firm's motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order was denied.