After being marked for removal from the bench in December, Chatham County Probate Judge Thomas C. Bordeaux Jr. is challenging his sanction recommendation to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Bordeaux's respondent counsel contend the judge's misconduct of issuing delayed rulings in at least 16 probate cases "presents an important question of first impression" since the delays involved "an overburdened judge who [took] longer to rule ... than the deadline provided by O.C.G.A. § 15-6-21."
But Judicial Qualifications Commission of Georgia Director Courtney Veal has doubled down on the JQC Hearing Panel's determination that Bordeaux should be removed from office.
"[A]llowing him to remain on the bench places the judicial system at risk moving forward," Veal briefed.
Repeated Ruling Delays
(l-r) Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit Superior Court Chief Judge Alison T. Burleson, JQC Hearing Panel Presiding Officer, Richard Hyde of Balch & Bingham, JQC Citizen Member, and Dax Lopez of DelCampo Grayson & Lopez, JQC Attorney Member. Courtesy photos
Bordeaux is accused of being slow to enter final orders in at least 16 probate cases—one of which remained in limbo for more than seven years. The respondent's counsel is Cartersville attorney S. Lester Tate III of Akin & Tate and W. Matthew Wilson of Bell Wilson Law in Atlanta.
In 2025, Bordeaux stood trial before the JQC Hearing Panel—made up of Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit Superior Court Chief Judge Alison T. Burleson, Richard Hyde of Balch & Bingham and Dax Lopez of DelCampo Grayson & Lopez—in August and October. Tate argued to the panel that Bordeaux's delayed final orders had been linked to systemic, rather than personal failures. At the time, respondent counsel highlighted the high caseload Bordeaux faced before pointing out that the cases he'd been charged with delaying represented less than 1% of the caseload.
READ: Final Showdown: Judge's Ethics Hearing Ends, Sanction Discussions Begin
Tate told the panel Bordeaux had made repeated requests for additional staff, funding and court space to manage the heightened workload. However, the panel heard conflicting testimony throughout the ethics hearing from additional court staff. But when respondent counsel concluded their arguments by recommending Bordeaux be monitored rather than sanctioned, JQC Director Veal cautioned the panelists to consider the precedent they ran the risk of setting if they obliged.
Less than two months later, the JQC Hearing Panel issued a report in December 2025 unanimously recommending the Supreme Court of Georgia discipline Bordeaux by removing the jurist from the bench. In the 66-page order issued Dec. 23, the JQC Hearing Panel concluded Bordeaux's repeated failure to timely rule on the series of cases amounted to willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to justice.
READ: Savannah Judge Marked for Removal From Bench
'Not for Lack of Trying'
In January, respondent counsel filed a notice of exceptions to the JQC Hearing Panel's sanction recommendation and a request for oral argument with the Supreme Court of Georgia.
"This matter presents an important question of first impression for this court. At the center is a well-known fact pattern that occurs in courtrooms all across this state each and every day: an overburdened judge who has taken longer to rule on a matter than the deadline provided by O.C.G.A. § 15-6-21," respondent counsel briefed. "Judge Bordeaux of the Probate Court of Chatham County stays late often and works the vast majority of weekends. ... Judge Bordeaux has admittedly exercised bad judgment in not issuing timely rulings in 16 probate matters in recent years. But it was not for lack of trying."
S. Lester Tate III (left) of Akin & Tate and W. Matthew Wilson of Bell Wilson Law. Courtesy photos
Respondent counsel also argued that the JQC Hearing Panel's sanction report and recommendation "suffer[ed] from critical errors."
"First, the hearing panel's conflating of Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.5(A) with Rule 2.2 has rendered Rule 2.5(A) mere surplusage, producing due process concerns in its enforcement," respondent counsel briefed. "Second, the hearing panel misapplied its own factual findings to 'transform' Judge Bordeaux’s diligence and dedication into 'bad faith' to justify a sanction based on willingness."
According to respondent counsel, the JQC Hearing Panel had also generated "significant substantive due process violations [with its] arbitrary line-drawing to determine the point in time when Judge Bordeaux’s failure to rule on specific matters crossed the threshold of 'bad faith.'"
"Finally, the hearing panel's recommendation of removal is not only contrary to this court's jurisprudence but also raises critical concerns that its precedential value would open the floodgates to disciplinary complaints by litigants wishing to use the JQC as a traffic cop for jurists who, even for legitimate reasons, have held a matter in abeyance for longer than O.C.G.A. § 15-6-21 allows," respondent counsel briefed.
READ: Notice of Exceptions | Request For Oral Argument
'He Models Disrespect'
Courtney Veal, Judicial Qualifications Commission of Georgia, Director. Courtesy photo
JQC Director Veal filed a response to the Bordeaux's notice of exceptions three weeks later. Throughout the 31-page brief, Veal maintained the hearing panel's conclusion that Bordeaux should be booted from the bench. Veal briefed that when a judge repeatedly violates the provisions contained in the Code of Judicial Conduct, "he models disrespect for binding rules and ethical principles, thereby damaging the public's confidence in the integrity of the judiciary."
"That damage matters a great deal, as deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary," Veal briefed. "Respondent has caused such damage to the judiciary and given his repeated failures to fulfill his primary duty as a jurist—to resolve disputes before him—allowing him to remain on the bench places the judicial system at risk moving forward."
READ: JQC Response to Bordeaux's Notice of Exceptions
Bordeaux's respondent counsel have until Feb. 26 to file a reply to Veal's response.
'Dismissed as Untimely'
(l-r) Judge Shermela J. Williams, Fulton County Superior Court, Gabe Banks of Banks Weaver, and Jamala McFadden of The Employment Law Solution. Courtesy photos
Bordeaux isn't the first judge to challenge his proposed sanction to the high court. Last November, respondent counsel for Fulton County Superior Court Judge Shermela J. Williams requested justices hear oral arguments in her judicial misconduct case.
Williams is accused of engaging in ex parte communications, being slow to issue final orders and improperly detaining a witness. During closing arguments in Williams' July 2025 judicial ethics proceedings, her respondent counsel, Gabe Banks of Banks Weaver and Jamala McFadden of The Employment Law Solution, attempted to convince the JQC Hearing Panel to sanction the judge with "a private reprimand up to and including a suspension of no greater than 30 days."
READ: Judge to Be Sanctioned? Ethics Hearing Ends
However, Veal argued for Williams' removal from office based on the seriousness of the judge's transgressions, the pattern of activity and the impact the conduct had on others and the judicial system. Less than three months later, the JQC Hearing Panel issued a report recommending the Supreme Court of Georgia remove Williams' from the bench.
Like Bordeaux, Williams lodged a notice of exceptions to the hearing panel's report and recommendation. Williams also sought an oral argument hoping to challenge the JQC's removal recommendation. However, the Supreme Court of Georgia denied Williams' request in January.
"Upon consideration of the Request for Oral Argument filed on November 10, 2025 in these cases, it is ordered that it be hereby dismissed as untimely," the high court ruled.
Williams later opted to resign her judicial post on Feb. 20.
READ: 'Writing This Letter Is Bittersweet': Judge Resigns as Ethics Investigation Looms
Deal Summary
