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

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PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential.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 

8/25/16
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).