Contact Us
Contact us
  • (202) 862-4360

Carol Thompson

Deputy Managing Partner

Carol Thompson is Deputy Managing Partner of the Federal Practice Group, where she focuses on high-stakes criminal and civil litigation, military defense, national security law, FOIA litigation, and government contracting. A veteran of the United States Marine Corps, Carol served for over seven years on active duty as a Judge Advocate, including roles as both Trial Counsel and Defense Counsel at Quantico, Virginia. She brings firsthand knowledge of the legal systems governing the military, the intelligence community, and the Department of Defense.

Carol currently leads the firm’s representation of the Samuel-Siegel family in a high-profile case against the U.S. Army, involving two federal lawsuits: one under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for the Army’s treatment of the family following their son’s death, and another under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for the delayed handling of a related medical malpractice appeal. The case stems from the suicide of PFC Noah Samuel-Siegel and alleges serious leadership failures, medical negligence, and a post-tragedy cover-up by military officials. Carol’s work in this matter reflects her deep commitment to justice for military families and to addressing the systemic breakdowns that put servicemembers at risk.

Her broader practice includes representation of active duty, reserve, and former service members, as well as federal contractors, in courts-martial, military correction board cases, FOIA disputes, security clearance matters, appeals, and wrongful discharge claims. She also assists with the removal of adverse documentation from personnel records and the upgrade of discharge characterizations before military review boards and the Court of Federal Claims.

She earned her J.D. from The University of Tulsa College of Law, her B.A. from Texas A&M University, and a Master of Studies in Law (MSL) in Government Contracting and Procurement Law from the University of Dayton School of Law. Carol is admitted to practice in Washington, D.C., Ohio, and Oklahoma, as well as before numerous federal and military courts, including the United States Court of Federal Claims and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Army v. Captain: Reserve Army Captain faced discharge at a Board of Inquiry over previous substantiated investigation into hostile working environment. All allegations were unsubstantiated before the Board, and the member was retained.

Naval Discharge Review Board (ND22-0135): Ms. Thompson successfully upgraded the discharge of a Sailor who was discharged for drug use. The Sailor’s characterization of service was upgraded from Other than Honorable to Honorable, and the narrative reason for discharge changed from Misconduct (Drug Abuse) to Secretarial Authority.

Naval Discharge Review Board (MD20-00164): Ms. Thompson successfully upgraded the discharge of a Marine who was discharged for drug use. The Marine’s characterization of service was upgraded from Other than Honorable to Honorable, the narrative reason for discharge changed from Misconduct (Drug Abuse) to Secretarial Authority, and the RE code changed from RE-4 to RE-1, allowing the Marine to re-enlist.

Army Discharge Review Board (AR20190005243): Ms. Thompson successfully upgraded the discharge of a Soldier who was discharged for drug use. The Soldier’s characterization of service was upgraded from Other than Honorable to Honorable, the narrative reason for discharge changed from Misconduct (Drug Abuse) to Misconduct (Minor infractions), and the RE code changed from RE-4 to RE-3, which allows waivers to be granted for re-enlistment.

Freedom of Information Act: Every FOIA lawsuit Ms. Thompson has pursued has resulted in some form of relief for the client, whether it is securing additional documents previously withheld or not produced, or having the Agency acknowledge the lack of existing documents, such that the acknowledgment is helpful for the client.

United States v. Lewis, No. 201900049 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jun. 8, 2020): The client was originally charged with three theories of sexual assault: when the victim was incapable of consenting, while the victim was asleep, and via bodily harm (i.e., without the victim’s consent). Ms. Thompson represented the client at trial, where he was acquitted of the second two theories of liability. She again represented him on appeal, where she convinced the Navy-Marine Court of Criminal Appeals that the conviction of sexual when the victim was incapable of consenting due to intoxication by alcohol was factually and legally insufficient under the definition in United States v. Pease, 75 M.J. 180 (C.A.A.F. 2016), the very same case that Ms. Thompson won at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In Lewis, the Court set aside her client’s conviction with prejudice, meaning he will no longer have any conviction on his record.

United States v. Gilpin, No. 201900033 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 30, 2019): The client was originally charged with two theories of sexual assault: when the victim was incapable of consenting and while the victim was asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware. The military judge acquitted Gilpin of the theory of incapable of consenting and while the victim was unconscious, but found that he had committed the assault while the victim was asleep or otherwise unaware. By the time the case was up for appeal, the same judge who had convicted Gilpin at trial was not a siting judge at the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. Ms. Thompson was retained for the appeal; using the government’s own expert testimony from trial, as well as an alternative theory of facts not previously argued by the trial defense, Ms. Thompson convinced the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal appeals that her client was not guilty of the offense a military judge previously convicted him of. In Gilpin, the Court set aside her client’s conviction with prejudice, meaning he will no longer have any conviction on his record.

United States v. Pease, 75 M.J. 180 (C.A.A.F. 2016): Ms. Thompson and Mr. Montalvo were appellate defense counsel in this seminal case from the military’s highest appellate court, which defined “incapable of consenting,” an element of alcohol facilitated sexual assaults under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under the definition established by this case, all of their client’s sexual assault convictions were set aside, and he was subsequently honorably discharged from the Marine Corps.

United States v. Zambrano,  No. 201500002 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 19, 2016): Ms. Thompson and Mr. Montalvo were appellate defense counsel. They argued the military judge committed error when he used “human lie detector” testimony in finding the client guilty. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, and set aside the conviction thereby reinstating their client into the Marine Corps.

Army v. CW2: CW2 facing a Board of Inquiry for a prior General Officer Memorandum of Record successfully retained.

Army v. Captain: Captain facing a Board of Inquiry for a prior General Officer Memorandum of Record permitted to honorably retire.

Army v. Captain: Captain, who was a medical officer, faced a Board of Inquiry for substandard performance and misconduct. The officer was retained.

Marine Corps v. CWO3: CWO3 facing a Board of Inquiry for alleged misconduct related to government contracting was retained, and ultimately allowed to retire.

Naval Discharge Review Board (MD16-01367): Ms. Thompson successfully upgraded the discharge of a Marine to Honorable when it was revealed the Marine Corps had discharged him with a general under honorable in violation of the applicable regulations.

Security Clearances: Ms. Thompson has successfully retained the security clearances of several individuals faced with a notice on intent to revoke by the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudication Facility. Reasons for the intent to deny included improper foreign connections, drug use, past criminal convictions, and financial issues.

 

  • J.D., University of Tulsa College of Law
  • B.S., Texas A&M University
  • District of Columbia
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
  • U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
  • U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
 
  • Super Lawyers Rising Star 2022
  • Super Lawyers 2023
  • Super Lawyers Rising Star 2024
  • American Bar Association
  • Oklahoma Bar Association
  • Marine Corps Association
  • Military Officers Association of America
  • Texas Aggie Bar Association