AAG representing Board of Medical Examiners received letter pointing out possible conflict of interest in representation of both the Board and the Commissioner. State supreme court held that the AAG, not the board, would be a party to the conflict to interest claim. Second, the court noted, “[E]ven if the Office of the Attorney General were representing both the board and [the commissioner of Public Health] concurrently, it would not make sense to treat this situation as a conflict of interest. This court has recognized that the Attorney General is in the “unique position” of representing the state, the state’s agencies, and the state’s citizens . . . The Attorney General’s ethical duties thus should be considered in relation to his “duties as the constitutional civil legal officer of the state,” which include being available to represent these various constituencies.” Finally, the court held that if the Board has a right to representation by the Attorney General, the Board itself, rather than the complainants, would be the appropriate party to assert this right.