A disciplinary panel in Georgia has recommended removing a Chatham County probate judge from office, concluding that prolonged delays in issuing court rulings amounted to a sustained pattern of misconduct that undermined public confidence in the judicial system.
In a detailed report filed in late December, a three-member hearing panel of Georgia’s Judicial Qualifications Commission said Probate Judge Thomas C. Bordeaux Jr. routinely delayed decisions for months and, in some cases, years, even after receiving repeated warnings from judicial oversight officials.
The 69-page report acknowledged that Judge Bordeaux took office in 2017 inheriting what it described as a deeply troubled court, including a significant backlog of weapons-carry license applications. Witnesses likened the court at the time to “a bus running on two wheels.” The panel noted that Bordeaux initially took steps to address those issues, including hiring new staff and appointing Wendy Williamson as chief clerk.
Williamson, who later became an associate probate judge, led an effort to digitize court records and raised concerns early about the judge’s failure to issue timely rulings. According to the panel, she created tracking tools in 2019 to highlight unresolved matters and later helped implement weekly hearing schedules and order-monitoring systems.
Despite those efforts, the panel found that delays persisted. In July 2021, Bordeaux was notified that he was under investigation for judicial misconduct related to several weapons-carry cases and a delayed ruling. While that complaint was later dismissed, it involved alleged violations of Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.2, which requires judges to resolve matters “fairly, promptly, and efficiently.” The panel said Bordeaux has since acknowledged violating that rule in 16 separate cases.
The report said Bordeaux hired a staff attorney in 2021 to assist with drafting orders but “was largely unwilling to allow that lawyer to assist him with preparing orders in any meaningful way.” It added that even after being given lists of overdue rulings, the judge failed to bring cases up to date.
A statewide transition to a new case management system in 2022 also did not improve the situation, the panel said, nor did suggestions that Bordeaux use form orders, rely more heavily on staff, or request proposed findings from attorneys.
Several cases cited in the report involved extraordinary delays. One estate matter remained unresolved for more than seven years, while other estate cases took more than three and four years to conclude. The panel said these delays imposed avoidable “emotional and financial costs” on the affected parties.
In 2024, the JQC director sent Bordeaux two separate notices regarding unresolved cases. According to the panel, he still failed to rule even after formal charges were filed in October.
“Between February 6, 2024, and October 3, 2024 — nearly eight months — after two letters and the filing of formal charges, he still had failed to rule,” the panel wrote. “Under these circumstances, we have no difficulty finding by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Bordeaux acted in bad faith by blatantly failing to rule in response to the notices from the director.”
The panel said the judge’s conduct sent a damaging message to the judiciary that ethical rules were “merely suggestions or requests” rather than binding obligations, adding that his actions brought the judicial office “into disrepute.”
It also concluded that Bordeaux showed persistent resistance to procedural and technological changes and that there was “little basis” to believe a suspension would prevent future misconduct.
“It is truly unfortunate that we find ourselves here,” the panel wrote. “But what are we to do with a judge who simply will not rule, even after receiving repeated notices from the body that regulates his conduct? … Because of his own actions and, more rightly, in actions, we find that Judge Bordeaux has forfeited that privilege.”
Panel member Richard L. Hyde issued a separate concurrence, agreeing with the removal recommendation but warning of a broader problem within the state judiciary.
“Judge Bordeaux is not alone,” Hyde wrote, describing judicial delay as “by far the most common complaint” he has heard from Georgia lawyers over the past 25 years. He suggested that lower courts consider mandatory ruling deadlines similar to those imposed on the Georgia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
The matter now moves to the Georgia Supreme Court, which will make the final decision on whether Bordeaux remains on the bench. The recommendation follows a three-day evidentiary hearing held in August.
Representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for comment.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission is represented by Courtney Veal. Judge Bordeaux is represented by S. Lester Tate III of Akin & Tate and W. Matthew Wilson of Bell Wilson Law LLC.
The case is In re: Inquiry Concerning Judge Thomas C. Bordeaux Jr., case number 2023-1082, before the Judicial Qualifications Commission of the State of Georgia.
