Barrister disbarred after exaggerating injuries in £250k personal injury claim

Avatar photo

By Rhys Duncan on

4

Clyde & Co investigated 🕵️

Tribunal sign
An unregistered barrister has been disbarred after exaggerating and being “fundamentally dishonest” about her injuries sustained during a road accident.

Claire Louise Thomas, of Merthyr Tydfil, was disbarred this week following disciplinary by a bar tribunal. Although she is a non-practising barrister, Thomas, who was called to the bar in 2008, remains subject to the regulator’s oversight.

The case dates back to 2016 when Thomas was involved in a road accident in which the other party, a van driver, admitted liability. According to a post by City law firm Clyde & Co, which was drafted in by the van driver’s insurers to investigate the claims, Thomas alleged she had suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders, and back, along with a concussion. She also claimed to have developed secondary fibromyalgia syndrome with hemiplegic migraines—a chronic condition that causes widespread pain, tenderness, and other symptoms throughout the body.

She further claimed to have suffered psychological consequence, including flashbacks, travel anxiety and low mood, and sough to recover significant damages for past and future loss of earnings, past and future care, and assistance.

The 2025 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

Due to these significant injuries, Thomas said she was unable to walk more than 100 yards without stopping, even on a good day, could stand for only 10–15 minutes, and always needed a handrail when using steps. She also alleged that she avoided noisy places, as they were overwhelming, and had become socially isolated.

Her claims unraveled, however, when Clyde & Co discovered a social media post made by Thomas herself, showing her completing a 10km walk in the Brecon Beacons, including a 170-step descent to a waterfall. Additional surveillance evidence revealed her attending gym classes and using stairs without a handrail, according to the firm’s post.

Further social media posts showed Thomas attending weddings, family events, and a concert in Cardiff, as well as traveling to Copenhagen, Switzerland, Scotland, Venice, Rome (to watch the Six Nations Rugby).

In the original case, the judge found Thomas to be “fundamentally dishonest”. Although she initially claimed £250,000, she was ultimately awarded only £9,918.75 for the injuries that were genuinely substantiated. This amount, however, was offset against the costs she was required to pay.

Thomas has now been disbarred. A spokesperson for the Bar Standards Board (BSB) said:

“By dishonestly presenting information about her medical symptoms, including in a civil court case, Ms Thomas’ behaviour has fallen short of the high standards of integrity and honesty expected of those called to the bar and the tribunal’s decision to disbar her reflects this.”

The tribunal’s decision is open to appeal.

Claire Louise Thomas is not to be confused with Clare Thomas, a practising barrister based in Manchester.

4 Comments

Social Addicts

It’s as if you asked someone “Would you take £1/4m to stay off social media for the rest of your life” and they just say no…

Anonymous

I’m certainly not defending the behaviour in question here, but I’m not convinced that taking disciplinary action against non-practising lawyers is a good use of the regulator’s time and resources.

Judging by the costs orders made by the SDT, even uncontested disciplinary hearings for solicitors can cost tens of thousands of pounds – and I’d imagine similar sums are involved for proceedings involving barristers. Where a person hasn’t practised for years and doesn’t hold a practicing certificate, is it really sensible and proportionate to commence full proceedings? Would it not be simpler for the regulator to require disclosure of any convictions (or adverse civil orders etc.) when a person re-applies for a practicing certificate? This would give the regulator a chance to consider fitness/propriety, without adding to the misery of people who have already been dragged through the courts, and without racking up even more costs.

D_T_T

The issue is people who are not really barristers in reality in the sense anyone rational would understand it, being able to call themselves that (and in many cases doing so, to claim status or credibility) because they passed a course years ago.

If that was no longer allowed to be the case (for broader reasons than cases like this), these sorts of actions wouldn’t be required. Since that’s the way the system is set up, the title has to be taken away if there is dishonesty and there has to be a process for that.

McB

Unless fully qualified to practice they should not be able to describe themselves as Barristers but since they are then being struck off is a necessary sanction when it seems what really appears to be fraudulent behaviour has not attracted either criminal prosecution or civil proceedings for committal for contempt of court and imprisonment as it has in a number of similar cases

Join the conversation

Related Stories

Top tax barrister prosecuted for tax evasion

Old Square Tax Chambers’ Robert Venables KC denies the charges

Oct 29 2024 10:56am