DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

 

In the Matter of

THOMAS M. TAMM, ESQUIRE, Bar Docket No. 2009-Dl95
Respondent

An Administrativer Suspended Member of the
Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals:
Bar Number: 958744 
Date of Admission: August 18, 1978

 

SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES

The disciplinary proceedings instituted by this petition are based upon conduct that violates
the standards governing the practice of law in the District of Columbia as prescribed by DC. Bar
Rule and DC Bar Rule XI, 

Jurisdiction for this disciplinary proceeding is prescribed by DC. Bar Rule XI. Pursuant
to DC. Bar Rule XI, is found because:

1. Respondent Thomas M. Tamm is a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals, having been admitted by motion on August 18, 1978, and assigned Bar ntunber
958744.

The conduct and standards that Respondent has violated are as follows:

2. In 2003, Respondent began to work at the Of?ce oflntelligence Policy and Review,
an agency of the United States Department of Justice.

3. Respondent?s duties involved applying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court for warrants to conduct electronic surveillance in national security matters.

 

 

 

4. The information with which Respondent was entrusted to support his warrant
applications was secret, and Respondent was required to obtain a special security clearance before
he could make such applications.

5. Respondent became aware that there were some surveillance applications that were
given special treatment. The applications could be signed only by the Attorney General and were
made only to the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The existence of these
applications and this process was secret.

6. Respondent learned that these applications involved special intelligence obtained
from something referred to as ?the program.? When he inquired about ?the program? of other
members of the Of?ce of Intelligence Policy and Review, he was told by his colleagues that it was
probably illegal.

7. Even though Respondent believed that an agency of the Department of Justice was
involved in illegal conduct, he did not refer the matter to higher authority within the Department.

8. In 2004, Respondent contacted a newspaper reporter and informed him what he
knew about conduct within the Department of Justice that he believed to be illegal. The
information that Respondent provided to the reporter constituted ?con?dences? or ?secrets,? as
those terms are de?ned by District of Columbia Rule of Professional Responsibility of
Respondent?s client, the Department of Justice.

9. Respondent?s conduct violated the following provision of the Rules of Professional
Conduct:

a) Rule in that he failed to refer information in his possession that

persons within the Department of Justice were violating their legal obligations to higher authority

[0

 

 

 

 

within the Department, including, if warranted. the highest authority that can act on behalf of the
Department, the Attorney General; and
b) Rule 1.6 in that he revealed to a newspaper reporter con?denees or secrets

of his client, the Department of Justice.

Respectfully submittedWallace E. Shippl. Jr. 7
Disciplinary Counsel



Hamilton P. Fox, 111
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel

OFFICE OF BAR COUNSEL
515 Fifth Street, NW.
Building A, Room 117
Washington, DC. 20001
(202) 638?1501

 

 

 

VERIFICATION

I do af?rm that I verily believe the facts stated in the Speci?cation of Charges to

Hamilton P. Fox, 111
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel

be true.

Subscribed and af?rmed before me in the District of Columbia this 29th day of
December, 2015.

My Commission Expires:

 

 

Notary Public