Case Intel

• A Georgia probate judge admits to years of delays but insists removal is “absolutely wrong.”
• One ruling sat on his desk for seven years, drawing outrage from litigants and watchdogs.
• Judicial watchdogs weigh immediate removal as critics say delays undermine justice statewide.

By SAMUEL LOPEZ
USA HERALD — August 29, 2025

When judges take the bench, they shoulder an immense responsibility: to interpret the law, protect rights, and ensure that cases move forward in a timely manner. The promise of justice is not only about fairness in rulings but also about delivering those rulings when people need them most.

In Georgia, that promise has been shattered by Chatham County Probate Judge Thomas Bordeaux, who admitted this week to years-long delays in issuing rulings and decisions but still insists, “it would be absolutely wrong to remove me.”

The 71-year-old judge defended himself before the state’s Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), arguing that his removal “would only send his Savannah-area office into further disarray.”

He went so far as to suggest, “Ms. Veal mentioned suspending me from office. Please — suspend me from office so I can go home and get some sleep, or go out and hike. That doesn’t help the court. If I can’t go into work, less work gets done, so that would not make any sense.”

But critics, myself included, see the situation very differently. The amount of harm this judge did to people with cases before him far outweighs any disruption that his immediate removal would cause. This type of conduct from our judicial officers cannot be tolerated any further. Without real consequences, this type of behavior will continue with other judges following his lead.

The Seven-Year Delay

Perhaps the most shocking fact to surface in these hearings: one case, that required a final ruling, languished before Judge Bordeaux for seven years before a ruling was entered. Seven years is not justice delayed — it is justice denied. In probate court, where families are often grieving or struggling with guardianship, inheritance, or medical decision-making, a delay of even months can cause lasting damage. Estates sit unresolved, assets remain locked up, and vulnerable individuals are left in limbo. For litigants, such delays are more than inconveniences — they are life-altering harms.

“It is outrageous. Seven years! That’s unacceptable,” one observer told me, and I couldn’t agree more.

Judge Bordeaux has admitted the delays but denies that they rise to “willful misconduct” or “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Instead, he blames the county’s lack of funding. “It was rather glaring that the office he inherited was underfunded and understaffed,” testified Pat Monahan, a former county official and Bordeaux’s longtime friend.

But that defense rings hollow. What Bordeaux fails to understand is that we don’t need him anymore. He can leave all of his cases right where they are, and somebody else can come in and take over. His type of “lazy judging” is not needed on the bench. He wasn’t getting work done then, and he has instilled no confidence that if left in place he would do any better.

The Clerk’s Damning Testimony

The most powerful testimony came from Wendy Williamson, Bordeaux’s former chief clerk, who worked closely with him for years. She told the panel that she repeatedly pushed him to speed up his rulings, but he “refused to accept responsibility for the backlog.” She added, “The only time something happened was if someone filed a mandamus or a JQC complaint.”

Her words cut to the core of the problem: the judge only acted when his hand was forced. That’s not diligence — that’s dereliction. Williamson’s vantage point as a close staffer gives her testimony weight that outside critics could never match. And in fact, Bordeaux himself inadvertently validated her credibility, admitting, “It is in the court’s absolute best interest to have her there, and frankly, sometimes that’s all that matters.” He may not have realized it, but he effectively reinforced the truth of her claims against him.

To me, her testimony reveals that Bordeaux’s inaction was not mere oversight. It suggests a deliberate choice to do less, perhaps in protest of a county government that, in his mind, failed to fund his office properly. If that’s true, it points to an ethical breakdown: instead of working harder under constraints, he made things worse — so bad that litigants were forced to beg higher courts to intervene.

A Judge Who Thinks He’s Indispensable

Bordeaux’s defense often veers into arrogance. At one point, JQC prosecutor Courtney Veal suggested he had told colleagues he couldn’t be removed “because it would defeat the JQC’s purpose in getting orders finished.” Bordeaux denied the comment, but the attitude fits a pattern. He seems to believe the court cannot function without him, when in fact his presence has been the problem.

The reality is stark: he is taking up space on the bench, preventing a new judge from stepping in to restore efficiency and faith in the court. The sooner he is removed, the sooner justice can be restored for the families who have waited years for basic rulings.

Why Timely Rulings Matter

In the judicial system, delays are not neutral. They inflict real harm. Litigants lose money, businesses lose opportunities, and families lose stability. For example:

• Probate cases can tie up estates, preventing heirs from accessing funds needed for education, medical care, or simply to pay bills.
• Guardianship cases left unresolved leave vulnerable individuals without clear protection or decision-makers.
• Property disputes left hanging for years create uncertainty that can devastate families.

The law requires judges to act competently and diligently for a reason. When they fail to do so, confidence in the justice system erodes. Citizens should not have to file writs of mandamus just to get a judge to do the job taxpayers are already paying him to do.

The Path Ahead

The JQC is expected to continue weighing the evidence and determine whether Judge Bordeaux should be disciplined or removed. He has offered to accept a public reprimand, but that is woefully inadequate. Public trust in the judiciary demands more.

In my view, the oversight committee needs to fire him and remove him from the bench. Anything less rewards a culture of complacency that harms real people. The judicial system depends on accountability, and without it, justice becomes a hollow promise.

As someone who has spent decades inside the legal system, I can say this with certainty: we cannot afford to tolerate judges who treat rulings as optional. The damage is too great, the stakes too high, and the people of Georgia deserve better.

Under Georgia’s Constitution, the JQC has the authority to discipline, suspend, or remove judges for “willful misconduct” or “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The threshold is not proof of a crime but rather clear and convincing evidence of ethical failure. Here, Bordeaux has admitted to years of delays — and litigants have testified to the consequences. The procedural posture is that of a formal disciplinary inquiry, not a criminal case, meaning the panel’s decision will hinge on whether his pattern of delay rises to a level that justifies removal.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission is represented by prosecutor Courtney Veal, while Judge Bordeaux is defended by S. Lester Tate III of Akin & Tate PC and W. Matthew Wilson of Bell Wilson Law LLC.

The matter is proceeding under In re: Inquiry Concerning Judge Thomas C. Bordeaux Jr., case number 2023-1082, before the hearing panel of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Sources:

JQC Complaint No. 2025-081: Formal Charges

JQC Complaint No. 2025-081: Answer to Formal Charges

JQC Complaint No. 2025-081: Joint List of Stipulated Facts and Admissions