tion of, or beneficial at the time at which the service was rendered toward the completion of, a case under this title; (D) whether the services were performed within a reasonable amount of time commensurate with the complexity, importance, and nature of the problem, issue, or task addressed; 8 Even if Mr. Gordon were retained under § 328, the Court would not award Mr. Gordon a 45% contingency fee due to his violation of Rule 2014 by failing to disclose his substantial unpaid fees related to the matter in connection with his application and his potential positional conflicts regarding the veracity of Debtor’s franchise application, the latter of which did not come to light until the filing of the dischargeability complaint after the Court denied the Motion to Reconsider. See In re Begun, 162 B.R. 168, 178 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993) (holding that a broker’s previously approved contingency fee could be reduced under § 328(a) when the contingency fee was improvident in light of undisclosed connections between the broker and the trustee’s law firm). Case 18-11303 Doc 68 Filed 12/10/19 Page 12 of 25 13 (E) with respect to a professional person, whether the person is board certified or otherwise has demonstrated skill and experience in the bankruptcy field; and (F) whether the compensation is reasonable based on the customary compensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners in cases other than cases under this title.