The court considered a motion to alter or amend its December 1992 decision that denied all compensation to counsel for the debtor in possession, Hansen, Jones & Leta and Snell & Wilmer. When representing a debtor in possession, an attorney has a duty to protect the interests of the estate rather than the interests of the debtor's principals, shareholders, officers, or directors. Inability to fulfill the role of independent professional on behalf of the fiduciary of the estate constitutes an impermissible conflict. A bankruptcy attorney who fails in this fiduciary capacity, by failing to remain free of conflicts and failing to refrain from serving a conflicting interest during a case, must be denied all compensation. Professionals who violate their fundamental ethical obligations to the bankruptcy estates they serve have not provided "valuable services" to those estates. Consequently, the motion to alter or amend the court's prior decision was denied. This decision was affirmed in part, and reversed in part in 400.pdf.