Harry Tun

DCCA Opinion (August 18, 2011)

Summary: August 11, 2011 (amended August 18, 2011). The D.C. Court of Appeals accepted Tun’s petition for negotiated disposition and suspended him for 18 months, with six months of the suspension stayed, followed by one year of probation on the conditions agreed to by the parties. Should Tun’s probation be revoked, the six-month stay shall be lifted and reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness to practice law. Between 1999 and 2003, Tun submitted vouchers to the D.C. Superior Court claiming payment for legal services rendered to indigent defendants. In each voucher, Tun wrote down the time he purported to have started and stopped working for a particular client for each day he claimed payment. A review of the vouchers revealed that Tun sought payment for the same time period for two or more clients on 162 occasions. These errors were the result of Tun’s “abysmal” recordkeeping. Tun ultimately repaid to the Superior Court $16,034, which represented the time that Tun had double-billed, minus a reasonable estimate of the time that he could have but failed to bill for other court-appointed matters. Rules 1.5(a), 1.5(f), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

Hearing Committee Report (June 24, 2011)

Summary: The Board on Professional Responsibility’s Hearing Committee Number Six recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals accept Tun’s petition for negotiated disposition and suspend Tun for 18 months, with six months of the suspension stayed, followed by a one-year probation period, with conditions. Tun has agreed that, if his probation is revoked for any reason, he will consent to the imposition of the six-month stayed suspension and a requirement that he prove his fitness to practice law before being reinstated. Rules 1.5(a), 1.5(f), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

Board Report and Orders (November 24, 2009)

Summary: On remand from the D.C. Court of Appeals on the issue of the “appropriateness of a negotiated discipline,” the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the court reject the proposed sanction (a nine-month suspension followed by a one-year period of probation, with 90 days of the nine-month suspension suspended, provided that Tun complies with specific conditions stated in the negotiated disposition). The board stated that although the proposed sanction was within the lower range of precedent for the misconduct involved, it does not believe the sanction adequately reflects the number of violations, or the extended time period during which the violations took place. The board stated that a more appropriate sanction would be a suspension of 18 months, with the last six months (1) stayed in favor of a one-year probation subject to the terms of the probation in the negotiated disposition, and (2) conditioned on his compliance with the terms of the probation. If Tun fails to complete the probation, the board recommends that fitness be imposed. Tun violated Rules 1.5(a), 1.5(f), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

Hearing Committee Report (July 14, 2009)

Summary: The Board on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals accept Tun’s petition for negotiated disposition and suspend him for nine months, followed by one year of probation. Ninety days of the nine-month suspension will be suspended, provided Tun complies with specific conditions stated in the negotiated disposition. Tun violated Rules 1.5(a), 1.5(f), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).