to the Trustee, and therefore was not aware that BG & S had represented Mr. Sabatino. (Tr. 111:2-13). Further, Mr. Shields testified that he did not know what the term “disinterested” meant under the Code. (Tr. 117:11-23). Mr. Shield’s failure to properly review his firm’s files and his unfamiliarity with the Code does not excuse BG & S from the disclosure requirements of Rule 2014. In re Park Helena Corp., 63 F.3d 877 (9th Cir.1995) cert. denied 516 U.S. 1049, 116 S.Ct. 712, 133 L.Ed.2d 667 (1996) (even a negligent or inadvertent failure to disclose a connection with a party in interest may result in a denial of all requested fees). BG & S’s Assertion of a Charging Lien New York law grants attorneys a charging lien on the proceeds of a judgment or settlement N.Y.S.2d 715, 721 (1997) (<HOLDING>), citing Matter of Cooperman, 83 N.Y.2d 465,
holding that we will not reverse in the absence of prejudice holding that the disciplinary rules of the code of professional responsibility are not laws of the state of texas for purposes of statute which excludes the admission of evidence obtained in violation of law holding that in the absence of compliance with the code of professional responsibility a charging lien will not be granted holding that the attorneys charging lien may be asserted and enforced in the civil action which gave rise to the lien claim or in an independent action holding that to be timely the notice of a charging lien must be filed before the lawsuit has been reduced to judgment