Can an attorney act as a prosecutor before the California Superior Court and also act as an adviser to the California Board of Justice in an unrelated matter?

concluded that in the absence of any evidence of actual prejudice, the potential for unfairness when an attorney acted as a prosecutor before the board and also acted as an adviser to the board "in an unrelated matter is too slight and speculative to achieve constitutional significance," in part because there was no evidence that the attorney acted in both capacities "in this or any other single adjudicative proceeding." (Id. at pp. 737, 740.) The court also disapproved of Quintero v. City of Santa Ana, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 817, to the extent that it "contains language suggesting the existence of a per se rule barring agency attorneys from simultaneously exercising advisory and prosecutorial functions, even in unrelated proceedings." (Morongo Band of Mission Indians, at p. 740, fn. 2.)