Cir.1994) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). This Court has held that a district court grievance committee’s decision not to hold a full evidentiary hearing did not violate the charged attorney’s due process rights when the risk of erroneous deprivation of the attorney’s interest in practicing before the district court was “extremely low,” and there was an “important public interest in not expending judicial resources on a proceeding that would largely duplicate a prior ... proceeding,” given that the attorney “had made no showing that such a hearing would reveal an infirmity of proof or lack of due process in the [prior] proceeding or risk of grave injustice from suspending [the attorney] on the basis of [a prior] order.” Id. at 90-91 (<HOLDING>). With respect to the Brackett allegation, an
holding that a district court grievance committees reliance on a state courts findings without holding an independent hearing did not violate the attorneys due process rights holding that any reliance by the parole board on inadmissible hearsay did not violate due process holding that district court may order hearing as remedy for termination of public employee without due process holding that towing of illegally parked vehicles without opportunity for prior hearing did not violate due process holding that doctrine does not violate due process