Slashdot Mirror
12 Years Later, Warrantless Wiretaps Whistleblower Facing Misconduct Charges (usnews.com)
cold fjord writes: Former Justice Department attorney Thomas Tamm sparked an intense public debate about warrantless surveillance nearly a decade before Edward Snowden. Tamm tipped reporters in 2004 about the use of nonstandard warrantless procedures under the Bush administration for intercepting international phone calls and emails of Americans. New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau used Tamm's revelations to help them win a Pulitzer Prize. Barack Obama criticized the program and the Obama administration Justice Department announced in 2011 that it would not bring criminal charges against him. Unfortunately Tamm is now facing disciplinary hearings before the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel which prosecutes the D.C. Bar's disciplinary cases. Tamm is facing ethics charges that could result is his disbarment, revoking his law license. Tamm is alleged to have "failed to refer information in his possession that persons within the Department of Justice were violating their legal obligations to higher authority within the Department" and "revealed to a newspaper reporter confidences or secrets of his client, the Department of Justice." Tamm currently resides in Maryland where he is a public defender. The effect of the D.C. case on him there is unclear. Tamm's attorney, Georgetown University law professor Michael Frisch, says the delays seen in this case are not unusual in D.C., it can take years for matters to play out. Another of Frisch's clients, who exposed the interrogation of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, believes the prosecution is political persecution.
Actually, yes, he did try to go through 'standard channels' first. When the government initially claimed he hadn't, he released the emails & other documentation proving that he had. That was the modus-operandi for the Snowden leaks for quite a while. The government would make a claim, repeat it for a couple news cycles, then more documents from the Snowden bundle would surface disproving the government's claim. After the dozenth such cycle (give or take), government officials largely stopped publicly commenting on the *specifics* of the Snowden leaks, instead restricting themselves to vague (and thus 'editable') generalities.
Lawyer here. You're wrong. The professional organization has no power to discipline or sanction. It actually is the government acting against him.
In most states, lawyer discipline is a bizarre private-court hybrid. A private, bar-association-related disciplinary committe screens the complaint to see if it has potential merit. If it does, the issue becomes public and is referred up. An office of disciplinary counsel will also perform the same function.
After that, everything gets handled by a quasi-judicial body -- a board of professional conduct, an office of disciplinary counsel, or what have you -- that is made up of attorneys appointed or employed by the state's highest court. It's a trial-like process. If you don't respond, it's not good for you. Quasi-trial. Quasi-appeal.
If things go poorly (for the lawer), the determination (actually a recommendation) is referred to the state's highest court. That court makes a determination based upon the recommendation, and any objections by the lawyer, and metes out any discipline.
Summary is this: the "professional organization" can go fly a kite. You do not have to be a member to practice, it has virtually no power over your ability to practice, and its principal use is for education, referrals, networking, and lobbying.
The quasi-judical review body is no joke. The referral to the Supreme Court of [insert state name here] is really no joke. And that body, my friend, is definitely the government.