IN RE THOMAS M. TAMM

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the
Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound
volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
8/25/16
No. 16-BG-690
IN RE THOMAS M. TAMM, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 958744)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Hearing Committee Number One
Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(BDN 195-15)
(Decided: August 25, 2016)
Before THOMPSON and BECKWITH, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R.
XI, § 12.1 (d) governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.
In this disciplinary matter, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board
on Professional Responsibility Hearing Committee Number One (“the
Committee”) recommends approval of an amended petition for negotiated attorney
2
discipline. The violation stems from respondent Thomas M. Tamm’s professional
misconduct arising from disclosure of confidential information of his client to a
reporter.
Based upon respondent’s recognition that during the course of his
employment as a lawyer for the United States Department of Justice Office of
Intelligence Policy and Review he provided a reporter with information that
constituted “confidences” or “secrets,” he admittedly violated Rule 1.6 of the
District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee considered
the following circumstances in mitigation: (1) respondent cooperated with
Disciplinary Counsel; (2) respondent’s sole intent was to further government
compliance with the law; (3) respondent made limited disclosure of the
information; (4) respondent did not receive any financial compensation from
disclosure of the information; and (4) the investigation of this matter had been
stressful and expensive. As a result, Disciplinary Counsel and respondent
negotiated the imposition of discipline in the form of a public censure. The
Committee reviewed the amended petition and supporting affidavit and concluded,
after the limited hearing on the revised petition, that the revised petition for
negotiated discipline should be approved.
3
We accept the Committee’s recommendation because it properly applied
D.C. Bar R. XI § 12.1 (c) to arrive at this conclusion, and we find no error in the
Committee’s determination. Based upon the record before the court, the negotiated
discipline of a public censure is not unduly lenient considering the existence of
mitigating factors and the discipline imposed by this court for a typical Rule 1.6
violation without any aggravating factors.1
In accordance with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, we
agree this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline, and we accept the
Committee’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Thomas M. Tamm be, and hereby is, publicly censured.
So ordered.
1
See In re Ponds, 876 A.2d 636 (D.C. 2005) (agreeing that a public censure
is a reasonable and appropriate sanction for improperly disclosing confidential
information in a motion to withdraw as defense counsel for a client); In re
Gonzalez, 773 A.2d 1026 (D.C. 2001) (directing the issuance of an informal
admonition after the attorney submitted a motion to withdraw as counsel that
revealed client secrets).