105:7-11 (emphasis added). When asked why the Winterhalter Firm was paid the Posb-Petition Payment, the Debtor stated: Because I believe t should have accrued to the Debtor’s estate and not the Debtor’s attorney. In addition to constituting the diversion of estate assets that should be made available to the payment of creditors, the payment of attorneys’ fees by a debtor-in-possession is not an ordinary-course transaction. In re Pannebaker Custom Cabinet Corp., 198 B.R. 458, 464 (Bankr.M.D.Pa.1996) (“payments to professionals are treated separately and specifically under the Bankruptcy Code and are thus without question payments outside the ordinary course of a debtor-in-possession’s ordinary financial affairs.”); In re Prime Foods of St. Croix, Inc., 80 B.R. 758, 762-63 (D.Vi.1987) (<HOLDING>); In re Pannebaker Custom Cabinet Corp., 198
holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or recognizing that postpetition payments to debtors attorney may not be characterized as ordinary course transaction exempt from 363bls notice and hearing requirements recognizing that an attorney hired to represent a debt or is not employed in the ordinary course holding courts have inherent authority to compel compensation for an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured