that, even though two assistant attorneys general report to the same division chief, the Office has maintained a wall between them. 9 . At oral argument, the attorney for Mallinckrodt confirmed that there is no allegation of unethical conduct by any of the assistant attorneys general. 10 . Other courts have come to similar conclusions. See, e.g., Wash. Med. Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnston, 99 Wash.2d 466, 663 P.2d 457, 465 (1983) (deciding that the assignment of a single assistant attorney general to both prosecute a case and advise the hearing officer would impair at least the appearance of fairness of the tribunal, but that the potential problem would be resolved by the appointment of different attorneys general for the performance of disparate functions); Hladys, 366 S.E.2d at 99-100 (<HOLDING>). 11 . At oral argument, the Defendants
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 recognizing distinction between actual and per se conflicts of interest holding that the institutional connection between  two assistant attorneys general  did not per se impair the right of the plaintiff to procedural due process holding the erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel constitutes per se reversible error holding hearing in chambers was not per se a violation of due process