In re Harry Tun

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. 17-BG-0769 10/18/2018 IN RE HARRY TUN A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 416262) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN-099-14) (DDN-463-10) (Argued May 8, 2018 Decided October 18, 2018) Hendrik deBoer, Senior Staff Attorney, with whom Elizabeth A. Herman, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel, Jennifer P. Lyman, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and Jelani C. Lowery, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, were on the brief, for petitioner. Abraham C. Blitzer for respondent. Before GLICKMAN and THOMPSON, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior Judge. Opinion for the court by Associate Judge THOMPSON. Opinion by Associate Judge GLICKMAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part, at page 30. THOMPSON, Associate Judge: In this original-discipline action, the Board on Professional Responsibility (the “Board”) recommends that respondent Harry Tun 2 be suspended for one year, with a requirement of proof of fitness before reinstatement, for violations of Rules 3.3 (a)(1) and 8.4 (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We adopt the Board’s recommendation of a one-year suspension, but decline to impose a fitness requirement. I. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (known until 2015 as the Office of Bar Counsel) initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondent after he filed, in a criminal matter before the Honorable Russell F. Canan, a motion for Judge Canan to recuse himself. The recusal motion, which respondent filed on October 16, 2009, stated in pertinent part as follows: [S]everal years ago, Judge Canan reported undersigned counsel for an alleged ethical violation, which was then investigated by D.C. Bar Counsel. The investigation was then dismissed without any disciplinary action being instituted against undersigned counsel. Respondent acknowledges that these assertions were untrue in that (1) “Judge Canan had not reported [r]espondent for an ethical violation” and (2) the matter Judge Canan identified “had not been dismissed but was active in the disciplinary 3 system” (with the result that respondent “ultimately did receive[] discipline”). The background is as follows. Between 1999 and 2003, respondent, a criminal defense attorney, accepted appointments pursuant to the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”) to advise and represent indigent criminal defendants in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Respondent submitted to the Superior Court payment vouchers in which he indicated the times he started and stopped working on matters for each individual client. Judge Canan became concerned that respondent was inaccurately reporting his time and notified the Chief Judge of the Superior Court, who referred the matter to the United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) for investigation. The USAO’s review of respondent’s vouchers revealed that respondent had sought payment for the same time period for two or more clients on 162 occasions. The USAO agreed not to file ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals