context: Appellate courts in other jurisdictions have squarely rejected claims that the combination of investigatory, enforcement, and adjudicative functions in a single attorney disciplinary agency (or judicial disciplinary agency) violates due process principles.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that Michigan's lawyer disciplinary proceedings do not violate due process, because the functions of investigation, prosecution, adjudication, and review are "functionally separate" and are handled by different individuals
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., In re Hanson, 532 P.2d 303, 306 (Alaska 1975) (stating that the “combination of judicial and investigative functions in the Commission [on Judicial Qualifications] did not violate petitioner’s due process rights under eigher [sic] the federal constitution or Alaska’s constitution”); People v. Varallo, 913 P.2d 1, 4 (Colo.1996) (holding that “[t]he fact that the members of the grievance committee and the disciplinary counsel are appointed by the supreme court is not enough by itself to establish a per se violation of due process”); In re Zoarski, 227 Conn. 784, 632 A.2d 1114, 1121 (1993) (holding that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions in one judicial disciplinary agency does not violate due process); In re Baun, 395 Mich. 28, 232 N.W.2d 621, 623-24 (1975) (holding that Michigan’s lawyer disciplinary proceedings do not violate due process, because the functions of investigation, prosecution, adjudication, and review are “functionally separate” and are handled by different individuals); Goldstein v. Comm’n on Practice of Supreme Court, 297 Mont. 493, 995 P.2d 923, 928 (2000) (rejecting claim that Montana’s attorney disciplinary system violated due process principles because investigatory and enforcement authority were combined in one agency).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 624 P.2d 1049, 1054-55
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that the Oklahoma Supreme Court, under due process principles, could not order the reinvestigation of an attorney disciplinary grievance but also noting that the Board of Governors of the state bar could review the matter
citation_b.sentence: But see Tweedy v. Okla. Bar Ass’n, 624 P.2d 1049, 1054-55 (1981) (holding that the Oklahoma Supreme Court, under due process principles, could not order the reinvestigation of an attorney disciplinary grievance but also noting that the Board of Governors of the state bar could review the matter).