Sure, but it would be difficult to enforce in practice. Many former prosecutors go on to become defense attorneys, plaintiff's attorneys, etc. However, they retain many of the biases they picked up while working in the prosecutor's office. Thus, composing a neutral ethics board would be very difficult.
They do use a form of adversarial process, with attorneys for both the complainant and the state presenting their sides of the case. But with a biased panel, little justice is served.
From my perspective, many attorneys place too much trust in the notion that a lawyer is a trusted "officer of the court." Because most attorneys believe themselves to be capable of neutrality, they trust others to do the same. In reality, everybody carries their bias with them.
The most effective solution is the one we have painstakingly developed over 900 years of common law jurisprudence: neutral juries composed of citizens chosen by lot.
They do use a form of adversarial process, with attorneys for both the complainant and the state presenting their sides of the case. But with a biased panel, little justice is served.
From my perspective, many attorneys place too much trust in the notion that a lawyer is a trusted "officer of the court." Because most attorneys believe themselves to be capable of neutrality, they trust others to do the same. In reality, everybody carries their bias with them.
The most effective solution is the one we have painstakingly developed over 900 years of common law jurisprudence: neutral juries composed of citizens chosen by lot.