of bias is premised solely on an administrative adjudicator’s exercise of both investigative and adjudicative functions, the party making the contention must show that, under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness, conferring investigative and adjudicative powers on the same individuals poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented. Any form of function combination, occurring alone and without other exacerbating biasing influences, is very unlikely to run afoul of procedural due process. Moncier, 406 S.W.3d at 161 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We find the principles from Heyne and Moncier persuasive. Attorney disciplinary proc 21 (1993) (<HOLDING>); In re Baun, 395 Mich. 28, 232 N.W.2d 621,
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 doctrine does not violate due process holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause holding that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions in one judicial disciplinary agency does not violate due process recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process