FOLLOW US

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.