On Friday, February 27, 2026, Judge Thomas C. Bordeaux, Jr. filed a reply in support of his exceptions to the Report and Recommendation of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission Hearing Panel concerning an inquiry into his conduct. The filing contests the JQC’s findings and recommends a lesser sanction than removal from office.
The case, identified as S25Z0981 in the Supreme Court of Georgia, involves a JQC complaint numbered 2023-1082 and 2025-081. Judge Bordeaux is represented by S. Lester Tate, III of Akin & Tate, and W. Matthew Wilson of Bell Wilson Law, LLC.
At the heart of Judge Bordeaux’s argument is the claim that CJC Rule 2.5, which pertains to the competent and diligent performance of judicial duties, is unconstitutionally vague. The filing asserts that the JQC has failed to demonstrate why the rule isn’t vague, pointing to the JQC’s “ad hoc and subjective enforcement” of the rule. The defense argues that the vagueness of CJC Rule 2.5 allows for arbitrary and discriminatory application, as it doesn’t provide explicit standards for those who apply it.
The filing cites Grayned v. City of Rockford, a U.S. Supreme Court case, to support the argument that vague laws impermissibly delegate basic policy matters to authorities for resolution on a subjective basis. It further contends that while the CJC provides that judicial duties include all duties prescribed by law under CJC Rule 2.1, no law prescribes a deadline for probate courts to issue rulings, making the rule vague.
Judge Bordeaux also argues that the Hearing Panel contorted the law and facts to justify removal due to the lack of a lesser sanction that is both appropriate and convenient. The filing notes that all parties and the Hearing Panel agreed that a lengthy suspension would worsen the problem. While the admitted conduct warrants a sanction greater than a public reprimand, the Hearing Panel rejected the unique potential sanction crafted by the respondent and opted for removal.
The filing emphasizes that Judge Bordeaux has not failed to do his work, citing unrebutted evidence that he worked extensively, including weekends, to keep up with his caseload. It points to data showing Judge Bordeaux’s presence at the office 58% of Saturdays and 70% of Sundays between 2018 and the hearing. He also exited the parking garage after 6:00 p.m. 96% of the time he was there and after midnight 13% of the time.
The filing acknowledges that Judge Bordeaux has admitted to errors and lapses in judgment but argues that these mistakes were honest and not willful failures to perform his judicial duties. It asserts that a competent, hard-working judge becoming overwhelmed by an increasing workload is not equivalent to a judge unfit for office.
The filing also notes that Judge Bordeaux did not engage in behaviors such as sexually assaulting or harassing anyone, requiring probationers to work on his reelection campaign, or providing special treatment to family members of political supporters.
The document concludes by asserting that the types of mistakes and errors admitted by Judge Bordeaux do not amount to the willfulness required to justify the ultimate sanction of removal.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
