Attorney Thomas J. Thomas focuses his practice on representing clients charged with alcohol and drug violations. He graduated cum laude in 1980 from Indiana University’s law school, one of the topped rated law schools in the country.

Since 1993 Mr. Thomas has practiced law in Georgia and is admitted to practice before both the Georgia Court of Appeals and Georgia Supreme Court. He has argued and won several important cases before both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court including: Bolden v. State, 272 Ga. 1 (2000), Keller v. State, 247 Ga. App. 599 (2001), Keller v. State, 275 Ga. 680 (2002), Fraser v. State, 263 Ga. App. 764 (2003), Colon v. State, 256 Ga. App. 505 (2002), Brahm v. State, 230 Ga. App. 407 (1998), and Davis v. State, 236 Ga. App. (1999).

Besides his work as an appellate attorney he has years of experience as a trial lawyer having conducted both bench and jury trials throughout the metro Atlanta area. Because of his skills as a trial lawyer he has been asked to speak at numerous seminars on topics ranging from Opening Trial Statements to Preservation of Error for Appeal. In conjunction with his speaking engagements he has publish numerous papers on these and related topics.

Thanks to his reputation as a top trial lawyer, he is often able to negotiate the reduction or even dismissal of pending charges. His ability as a top negotiator has also lead to many requests for him as a lecturer. He has published two papers on the subject: Thirty Ideas for Negotiating a Criminal Case and Thirty Ideas for Negotiating a DUI case.

Mr. Thomas has completed the Mastering Scientific Evidence training seminar and the National Highway and Traffic Safety Association’s (NHTSA) Standardized Field Sobriety Training course.

Mr. Thomas is a founding partner of the firm Thomas & Willis which won Georgia Best Lawyer’s award for DUI defense in 2013. He has a Superb rating from AVVO (an on-line attorney rating service) and an AV Preeminent for Ten Years rating from Martindale-Hubbell.

Qualified, experienced and committed to client service, Mr. Thomas is available for a free consultation to consider and discuss your legal needs.

CLIENT TESTIMONIALS

Wonderful Attorney

Mr. Thomas was my daughter’s attorney for a second DUI a few years back. He did an excellent job of handling her case. He kept us very informed and explained the situation we were all involved in. A couple of years later he helped several more times when she failed to tie up some loose ends related to her DUI. Without his help, she may have had dire consequences. He is professional and compassionate. I recommend him wholeheartedly.

– Sharon

Reduced My DUI

In life we make mistakes, we all do. I made several one morning in December. I was arrested on multiple charges, and had no way of defending myself without serious jail time and losing my driving privileges. I contacted the Law offices of Thomas, Webb & Willis – 750 Hammond Dr., Bldg. 5, Atlanta, Ga -404-250 1113”, and asked for assistance. Working with Mr. Thomas and his great staff, more specially Ms. Brigitte, they successfully negotiated an agreeable reduction of my traffic offenses (DUI) with the County Solicitor and the Honorable Judge. He wasn’t lucky, his reputation as a great attorney, well recognized and received in the industry helped our case (we were 4 hours late to appear, again, because of his reputation and honest hard work, the County Solicitor, and the Honorable Judge waited 4 hours until he arrived. That speaks volumes). I’m writing this late letter today, because I have been busy working, I drive for a living……by the way he saved my driving privileges. Today I get a second chance to get my life together.

– Anonymous Client

CASE WINS

State v. S.M.
Practice Area: DUI
Result: Not Guilty of DUI at bench trial: 11/12/2014
Outcome: After being stopped for failing to maintain lane the defendant was charged with DUI and had a breath test result of .152 on an Intoxilyzer 5000. Mr. Thomas moved the case out of a Municipal Court into State Court in order to present a motion to suppress the breath test. In state court Mr. Thomas was able to successfully argue that the defendant had been induced to take a breath test due to remarks made by the arresting officer (and caught on a police video). At the subsequent bench trial the defendant was found guilty of failing to maintain lane but not guilty of DUI.

State v. M. S.
Practice Area: DUI
Result: Charge reduced: 11/14/2014
Outcome: A police officer found the defendant stopped on the wrong side of the road with a flat tire. After investigating, the officer arrested the defendant for DUI. A subsequent breath test revealed an alcohol level of .096. After Mr. Thomas reviewed the police video with both the city solicitor and the arresting officer, the city agreed to reduce the charge to reckless driving in view of the nature of the stop and the defendant’s good record.

State v. A. J.
Practice Area: DUI
Result: Case dismissed on 2/4/2015
Outcome: After being stopped for an expired tag the defendant was charged with DUI and had a breath test result of .178 on an Intoxilyzer 5000. Mr. Thomas filed a battery of motions regarding the stop and the breath test results spread over two different courts. Eventually, the State prosecutors agreed that the matter had become too old to further prosecute and dismissed the charge.

State v. E.F.
Practice Area: DUI
Result: Case dismissed on 2/4/2015
Outcome: After being speeding for the defendant was charged with DUI and had a breath test result of .101 on an Intoxilyzer 5000. As the defendant had a prior DUI, the initial municipal court insisted on pleading to DUI and required jail time. Mr. Thomas filed a battery of motions regarding the stop and the breath test results and eventually moved the case to a different state court. Due to the cases age and complexity prosecutors agreed that the matter finally dismissed the charge.

State v. L.W.
Practice Area: Drug Possession
Result: Case resolved January 21, 2015
Outcome: The Defendant was initially stopped for having a suspended license but eventually his vehicle was searched and alleged marijuana was discovered. After motions were filed regarding both the stop and the subsequent search, Mr. Thomas was able to convince the prosecutors that the marijuana would probably be suppressed and also that the Defendant had already reinstated his license. As a result both the marijuana and suspended license charges were dropped and the Defendant plead only to a Loitering charge.

State v. J.S
Practice Area: DUI/DWI
Case Dismissed: 9/10/2014
Outcome: The defendant was stopped for failing to remain their lane. After being stopped the defendant agreed to do the three sobriety tests. Which, according to the officer they failed. The defendant was arrested but refused to take a breath test. The original municipal court solicitor refused to consider reducing the charge and consequently Mr. Thomas transferred the case to the county’s State Court. After an extensive motion hearing the officer did not appear at trial and that case was eventually dismissed.

State v. M.A
Practice Area: DUI/DWI
Reduced to lesser offense: 8/20/2014
Outcome: The defendant was stopped for not having her headlights on while driving on the interstate. After stopping the defendant, the arresting officer administered field sobriety tests and claimed to have observed several indicators of intoxication. The defendant was arrested and took the breath rest with a result of .071 and .101. Since the defendant was a member of the United States Army, her entire career could have been jeopardized by this charge. The case was called for trial several times and the defendant maintained her innocence and Mr. Thomas insisted on a jury trial. Eventually the state agreed to reduce the charge to a traffic offense.

State v. B.B
Practice Area: DUI/DWI
Reduced to lesser offense 6/13/2014
Outcome: The defendant was stopped after a minor accident. After the arresting officer observed what he believed to be several indicators of intoxication. The defendant admitted to having taken several prescription medications that day and this eventually lead to the defendants arrest. Since the defendant was employed as an airline stewardess, a conviction could have devastated her career. Eventually Mr.Thomas was able to demonstrate that all the medications the defendant had taken were legally prescribed and within normal therapeutic levels. Just before a motion hearing challenging the defendants blood test, the state agreed to reduce the charge to a lesser traffic offense.

State v. M.C
Practice Area: DUI/DWI
Reduced to lesser offense: 9/23/2014
Outcome: The defendant was stopped for driving too fast for conditions. After the stop the arresting officer observed what he believed to be several indicators of intoxication. The defendant agreed to take a breath test and got a result of .078 and .085 because the defendant had a child in the car and they were charged with double DUI (which would have counted as a second offense DUI for sentencing). Mr. Thomas was able to get this potentially devastating result reduced to a lesser traffic offense.

State v. M.Z
Practice Area: DUI/DWI
First Case Reduced 8/13/2014
Second Case Reduced 10/9/2014
Outcome: The defendant had been charged with two DUIs in one month and so faced very serious consequences. Fortunately, though Mr, Thomas’ efforts, the defendant did not end up with any DUIs. In the first case Mr. Thomas was able to convince the solicitoe that the arresting officer had not collected enough evidence to justify a DUI. In the second case, Mr. Thomas was able to show that the state could not prove who was actually driving the car when the police first encountered the defendant and this case was therefore also reduced to a lesser offense.

State v. C.M.
Practice Area: DUI/ DWI
Case reduced: 8/28/2014
Outcome: The defendant faced a DUI iwth two prior convictions within five years. The state was demanding 6 months to be served in jail. Though a lengthy series of motion hearings stretching over several years, Mr. Thomas finally convinced the state that it would be difficult to prove the defendant was actually driving a car as she was found in her home by the time the police arrived following a citizens complaint and in any case for her appearance and behavior which the police mistook for intoxication could be explained by her mental condition at the time. The case was eventually reduced to a lesser charge with only house arrest.

State v. R.B
Practice Area: DUI/DWI
Case Reduced: 8/28/2014
Outcome: The defendant was stopped for failing to signal before changing lanes and eventually charged with DUI after testing .175 on a state breath test. Despite this high score, Mr. Thomas got the charges reduced by showing via a police video that the Defendant had attempted to use a turn signal and in any case there was no actual traffic to respond to a turn signal. The case was reduced to a lesser charge.

State v. H.J
Practice Area: DUI/DWI
Case Reduced: 9/16/2014
Outcome: After being stopped for not having her headlights on, the defendant allegedly failed several field sobriety tests and then, concerned by the officers demeanor, refused to take a step breath tests. The original municipal court insisted that the defendant plead to a DUI, so Mr. Thomas transferred the case to that county’s state court. By using discrepancies in the police report Mr. Thomas was able to demonstrate that the DUI investigation had not been properly conducted and that the field sobriety tests were unreliable. Eventually the DUI charge was dismissed and the defendant plead guilty to not having her headlights on.