advocated by Marshall. See Osteen, 13 F.3d at 225 (“[e]ven if a student has a constitutional right to consult counsel..., we do not think he is entitled to be represented in the sense of having a lawyer who is permitted to examine or cross-examine witnesses, to submit and object to documents, to address the tribunal, and otherwise to perform the traditional function of a trial lawyer.”). In addition, the Defendants contend that some courts only allow attorneys in cases where the student also faces criminal charges for the same incident and that those courts limit the attorney’s role to preventing the accused student from testifying against himself and forfeiting his Fifth Amendment rights in a criminal proceeding. See, e.g., Gabrilowitz v. Newman, 582 F.2d 100, 106-07 (1st Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>); Gomes v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 365 F.Supp.2d
holding that a student has a right to counsel in a university disciplinary hearing where there is a pending criminal charge for the same incident but noting that the attorneys role at the disciplinary hearing is limited to safeguarding the students rights at the criminal proceeding and not to affecting the outcome of the disciplinary hearing holding that a prison disciplinary committee violated inmates rights to procedural due process by refusing to call their witnesses even though the disciplinary hearing took place in the aftermath of a riot and the resulting disciplinary caseload was ex tremely heavy holding that an inmates mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary report imposing 15 days disciplinary confinement was a collateral criminal proceeding because the disciplinary confinement limited petitioners ability to earn gain time holding that where the conviction was final the disciplinary commission was not authorized to assume the roles of both an accusatory tribunal and the ultimate determiner of guilt and that the separation of responsibility between the disciplinary board and the disciplinary commission provides constitutional due process holding that a professors speech at a students disciplinary hearing was made within his official duties since the professor had special knowledge and experience with the universitys disciplinary code as a de facto advisor to students with disciplinary issues