proceedings that we have come to expect in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, while the separation of investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative functions is a hallmark of criminal proceedings, due process does not require the strict adherence to separation of functions in civil matters. [Thus], some combination of overlapping of functions in an administrative proceeding is not inconsistent with fundamental fairness. Id. (citations omitted). We also have addressed this issue, albeit tangentially, in an attorney disciplinary proceeding. In Moncier, we considered whether members of a hearing panel should have recused themselves on the ground of alleged bias due to the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions in the Board. As we wrote: When an assertio 4 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Goldstein v. Comm’n on Practice of Supreme
holding that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions in one judicial disciplinary agency does not violate due process holding a continuance of lawyer disciplinary proceedings pending resolution of related criminal proceedings is not constitutionally required holding that michigans 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 holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause recognizing that individuals are generally not similarly situated when different decision makers are involved in the respective disciplinary action