are not criminal proceedings, and to prove a risk of bias that would give rise to a due process violation, a litigant must point to more than a simple combination of functions within the Board. 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. 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>); In re Zoarski, 227 Conn. 784, 632 A.2d 1114,
holding that the 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 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 holding that prison disciplinary hearing committee members are entitled to qualified immunity holding hearing in chambers was not per se a violation of due process holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation