On Wednesday, November 6, 2024, Law.com reported that Chatham County Probate Judge Thomas C. Bordeaux Jr. admitted to several judicial misconduct charges brought against him by the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) of Georgia. However, he has denied that his actions constituted willful misconduct or that they were prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The charges stem from allegations that Judge Bordeaux failed to issue final orders in at least nine probate cases in a timely manner. The JQC formally announced the charges on October 3, indicating that Bordeaux had not adequately disposed of these cases since taking office in January 2017, following the retirement of Judge Harris Lewis.

The JQC’s 10-count charging document claims that Bordeaux violated two specific rules from the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is accused of breaching Rule 2.5 (A), which mandates judges to perform their duties competently and diligently, as well as Rule 2.2, which requires the timely and fair resolution of judicial matters. The document highlights that Bordeaux’s delays ranged from 11 months to over seven years in some probate cases.

Bordeaux’s legal representation, consisting of attorneys S. Lester Tate III and W. Matthew Wilson, responded to the JQC’s findings on his behalf. While acknowledging the allegations regarding his delays, Bordeaux’s counsel disagreed with the assertion that his conduct amounted to willful misconduct. They emphasized that violations become grounds for discipline only when they reflect a persistent failure to perform judicial duties or conduct that brings the judiciary into disrepute.

In his response, Bordeaux admitted to nine of the ten allegations, seeking to clarify some factual inaccuracies presented by the JQC. For example, he corrected the record regarding a hearing on November 30, 2020, asserting that he presided over a “show cause” hearing rather than a petition for settlement as alleged.

The only count that Bordeaux denied involved the claim that he failed to competently perform his judicial duties in the matters related to the alleged delays. His counsel argued that Bordeaux’s actions did not rise to the level of willful misconduct as defined by the JQC.

 

 

Source: Law.com