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. 1 6

- B G

- 690
I N RE T HOMAS M. T AMM , R ESPONDENT

. 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 , 201 6 ) Before T HOMPSON and B EC K WITH , Associate Judges , and F ARRELL , Senior Judge

.

P ER C URIAM : 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 ma tter, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Hearing Committee Number One (“ the Committee ”) recommends approval of a n amended p etition for negotiated attorney 8/ 25 /162

discipline

. The violation stem s fr om 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 Depa rtment 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 t he District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct

. T he Committee considered the following circumstances in mitigation: (1) respondent cooperat ed 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) respon dent did not receive any financial compensation from disclosure of the information ; and (4) the investigation of this matter ha d been stressful and expensive

. As a result, Disciplinary Counsel and respondent negotiate d 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 a ccept 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 t his 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 ce nsured.

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).