continue representation, including upon informed consent in writing); see also In re Badzikowski, 507 B.R. 798, 801-801 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.2014) (attorney for debtors in dismissed Chapter 13 case required to represent debtors’ interests, not self interest by first seeking payment upon dismissal). By imposing the deadline sought by the Trustee (ie., the date of dismissal or shortly thereafter), the court" would unnecessarily be creating tension between the Applicant’s ethical duties and its right to receive compensation for the services it provided to the Debtor. The court is also mindful of the fact that neither the Trustee nor any other party in interest has asserted that it will be prejudiced due to the timing of the Application. See In re Sweports, Ltd., 777 F.3d 364, 367 (7th Cir.2016) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Trustee’s argument is not
recognizing conflict between filing motion to dismiss and fee application and noting postponement of fee application resulted in no prejudice to any party holding that petitioner had failed to exhaust alternative remedies for review of his fee agreement because the ssa notified petitioner he could obtain his fee by filing a fee petition recognizing impraeticality of requiring fee application before dismissal holding that the fee applicant bears the burden of showing that  an adjustment is necessary to the determination of a reasonable fee  holding that attorneys fees for the preparation of the fee application are compensable