Solicitor’s night of chaos costs her £17,500 and reputation

Elizabeth Thomson, a partner at a Kent law firm, drove nearly three times the legal alcohol limit, crashed into two cars, and failed to stop

A solicitor once trusted to uphold the law instead shattered it in the most reckless fashion, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has ruled. Elizabeth Thomson, a partner at Boys & Maughan LLP, spiralled into disgrace after a night behind the wheel that could easily have ended in tragedy.

On 5 November 2022, Thomson steered her Jaguar onto Kent’s roads after drinking heavily. What followed was nothing short of carnage. She weaved into oncoming traffic, collided with a Hyundai IONIQ, then struck a Kia Venga. Both times she failed to stop. Other drivers, startled and terrified, dialled 999. An off-duty police officer gave chase. Breath tests later revealed the shocking truth: 100 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, nearly triple the legal limit.

The courts moved quickly. In April 2023 at Margate Magistrates’ Court, Thomson admitted drink-driving, careless driving, and failing to stop after accidents. Her punishment: a 12-week suspended prison sentence, 26 months off the road, 80 hours of unpaid work, and fines totalling over £200.

But that was only the beginning. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) then stepped in, hauling her before the Tribunal in September 2024. The profession, after all, holds its members to a higher standard.

The SRA accused her of five breaches. Three were indisputable — the drink-driving, the reckless manoeuvres, the collisions, and her failure to stop. She admitted these from the outset. Two more serious allegations, however, cut deeper: that she misled her employer and even the SRA itself by downplaying the severity of her convictions.

In the hearing, the Tribunal listened as Boys & Maughan’s compliance officer gave inconsistent evidence. The firm’s records were sparse. Thomson, in contrast, came across as “credible and honest.” She had reported her convictions and believed she had disclosed them fully. The SDT rejected the accusations of dishonesty outright.

Still, the proven misconduct was damning. The Tribunal did not mince words: by driving in such a state, Thomson had endangered the public and dragged the reputation of the profession through the mud. A solicitor, they reminded, is trusted not only in their office but in every aspect of public life.

Yet the panel stopped short of suspension. They weighed her 20 unblemished years in practice, her remorse, and the fact this was a one-off error, not a pattern of behaviour. They accepted she posed no ongoing threat. Instead, they imposed a £17,500 fine, one of the heavier financial penalties within their power, plus £2,500 in costs.

The Tribunal made clear why. Public confidence demanded a sanction severe enough to sting but fair enough to reflect both guilt and redemption. Thomson, they said, had already paid a heavy personal and professional price.

Her case is a sobering reminder: even one night of reckless choices can dismantle decades of careful reputation-building. For Thomson, once trusted to protect clients, the verdict marks a fall from grace that will shadow her career long after her driving ban has expired.