On Thursday, December 22, 2022, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarred Washington attorney Harry Tun for repeated acts of dishonesty. The case is entitled “In the matter of Harry Tun” with case no. 22-BG-054.
The charges cited Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 19-303(a)(1), 19-308.4(b), 19-308.4(c), 19-308.4(d).
Knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.
Committing a criminal act reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney.
Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty.
Engaging in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice.
The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
The respondent, Mr. Tun, concedes that he violated the said charges. Due to repeated acts of dishonesty, the Board concluded that the respondent should be disbarred. As to the present, Mr. Tun already received a total of five(5) informal admonitions from the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel and two(2) suspensions from the court. In a Report and Recommendation of the Board of Professional Responsibility dated February 2, 2022, the present violation of Mr. Tun was explained. Allegedly, while requesting readmission after his suspension from the practice of law, the respondent gave false statements as answers for his renewal applications.
The filing states:
“July 2017. Each application asked whether Mr. Tun had ever “been denied admission to practice, disbarred, suspended from practice, or disciplined by any court or bar authority.” On the first five renewal applications, he answered “no” even though he had received one or more informal admonitions before each application. On the sixth, which he submitted after his 2011 suspension, he answered “yes,” disclosing the suspension but none of the informal admonitions. The renewal application also asked whether Mr. Tun was the subject of any pending disciplinary proceedings. To his credit, he answered “yes” to this question on his fifth renewal application, which he submitted while TunI was ongoing. But he answered “no” to this question on his sixth renewal application, even though he was in the middle of the proceedings that would ultimately result in his second suspension.”
The filing continues:
“At the hearing, Mr. Tun initially claimed that he had not fully understood that informal admonitions were a form of discipline when he submitted his renewal applications. He also claimed that he had not thought it necessary to report District 7 of Columbia disciplinary proceedings in his renewal applications in Maryland federal court, repeating his explanation from the 2017 letter. Later in the hearing, however, Mr. Tun admitted that he had understood the informal admonitions to be forms of discipline and that he had “made a mistake” by omitting them from the applications.”
The filing further states:
“With respect to Mr. Tun’s failure to disclose his ongoing disciplinary proceeding in his sixth renewal application, the Committee found that he had 8 committed perjury in violation of both federal and Maryland law. It also found that he had given intentionally false testimony at the hearing by claiming that he did not know that he needed to report District of Columbia discipline to the Maryland federal court.”
According to the court while Mr. Tun’s behavior did not involve the type of dishonesty to clients present in In re Corizzi or In re Baber, the protracted and persistent nature of his misconduct, coupled with their deference to the Board, warrants disbarment. Moreover, the court adds that Attorneys simply cannot be trusted to 0 fulfill their duties to the judicial system and to the public if they flout their duty to be truthful. Mr. Tun has failed to respect that obligation several times leading the Hearing Committee to observe that it could “envisage no fitness requirements, probation conditions, or CLE courses that would correct his disregard for the truth. ” So for the said reasons, the court agreed to disbar the respondent.
The Disposition states:
“Harry Tun is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. For purposes of reinstatement, the effective date of his disbarment will not begin to run until he files an affidavit that complies with D.C. Bar Rule XI, $ 14(9).”
Mr. Tun’s info can be found on lawyer.com. Tun practices in Washington, District of Columbia. He is licensed in the District of Columbia with license #416262.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.