Robb v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 122 F.3d 354, 362 (7th Cir.1997). The majority’s rationale suggests that an attorney’s misinterpretation of an unambiguous rule never can be excusable neglect, regardless of the circumstances. Such a perspective, however, is untenable, for it contravenes the contextual nature of the excusable neglect determination. See Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395, 113 S.Ct. at 1498, 123 L.Ed.2d at 89; see also United States v. Brown, 133 F.3d 993, 997 (7th Cir.1998) (“But Pioneer made clear that the standard is a balancing test, meaning that a delay might be excused even where the reasons for the delay are not particularly compelling.”), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 1824, 140 L.Ed.2d 960 (1998). But cf. Advanced Estimating Sys. v. Riney, 130 F.3d 996, 998 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Yost, 92 F.3d at 825 (finding that counsel’s
holding as a matter of law that an attorneys misunderstanding of the plain language of a rule cannot constitute excusable neglect such that a party is relieved of the consequences of failing to comply with a statutory deadline and providing no discussion of circumstances other than the attorneys error holding that an attorneys bills are high evidence as to the maximum value of the attorneys services holding that reliance on an attorneys erroneous belief as to the date of an estate tax filing deadline is insufficient to constitute reasonable cause holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule holding as a general rule of contract law if no other meaning is reasonable the court shall rule as a matter of law that the meaning is established