Is it sound discretion for a bankruptcy court to disregard nearly sixty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding what comprises property of a bankruptcy estate, decided in Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S. 375 (1966), by excluding property from the estate as grounds to refuse to retain jurisdiction of an independent statutory action for willful violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. §362(k)(1) resulting from exercise of control over such property — the settlement proceeds of a duly scheduled lawsuit — by the omission of the Chapter 13 debtor's personal injury plaintiff lawyer to disclose the existence of the lawsuit settlement proceeds and omission to timely collect the proceeds while the Chapter 13 case was still pending?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Is it sound discretion for a bankruptcy court to disregard nearly sixty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding what comprises property of a bankruptcy estate, decided in Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S. 375 (1966), by excluding property from the estate as grounds to refuse to retain jurisdiction of an independent statutory action for willful violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. §362(k)(1) resulting from exercise of control over such property — the settlement proceeds of a duly scheduled lawsuit — by the omission of the Chapter 13 debtor’s personal injury plaintiff lawyer to disclose the existence of the lawsuit settlement proceeds and omission to timely collect the proceeds while the Chapter 13 case was still pending? Regarding disgorgement of attorney fees for failure to disclose the compensation agreed to be paid under 11 U.S.C. §329(a), and for failure to properly benefit the Chapter 13 debtor under 11 U.S.C. §330(a)(4)(B) do the requirements of §329(a) and §330(a)(4)(B) “... apply equally to counsel employed by a debtor to provide legal services ‘in connection with’ [a] bankruptcy case, such as pursuing a claim that is property of the estate”, as noted by the bankruptcy court in Jn re Jones, 505 B.R. 229 at 233 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2014)? [App. D, Note 2, 55a]. Are the four factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity that are ordinarily applicable to just pendent jurisdiction of state claims also applicable to federal claims suchas the rights and remedies of core proceedings found only in bankruptcy law, for which only federal and bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction?