Now a Henrico County judge, Bondurant rendered himself dishonest, disrespectful, and unprofessional in my case. I think he also felt entitled to pocketing his retainer, even after he jeopardized my standing in court, and assured me that he would refund it.

Mr Bondurant represented me in a criminal case. His commitment and demeanour, overall, were paltry and unprofessional. Outside court and the perfunctory office meetings, Mr Bondurant only made himself available to me to answer questions regarding my case once, i.e., a short telephone conversation betraying a sense of agitation and reluctance on his part. In the rare event that he imparted any sort of 'rational' counsel, Mr Bondurant's bearing was unmistakably patronising. E.g., When it was time for me to enter a plea, I had questions about the implications of the court's findings and sentencing, which neither received proper acknowledgement nor were specifically addressed/answered; and I was afforded virtually no time to make an informed decision about my plea.
Up until the date of the initial court hearing, Mr Bondurant left me with the distinct impression that the charges I was facing were pretty easily dismissible, but this 'foregone conclusion' was soon proven false.
I was granted a continuance from late summer of one year to the very beginning of the next. In this time, it was evident that little, if no effort had been made preparing a defence for my case. E.g., It obviously came as a bit of a shock to Mr Bondurant that certain testimony had been subpoenaed by the commonwealth.
Finally: On more than one occasion, Mr Bondurant indicated he would refund his retainer. Much to my chagrin, he reneged on this agreement...

It would appear that the practice of screwing over his clients, and subsequently securing their convictions from ‘guilty’/‘no contest’ pleas, for the seedy Commonwealth Attorney’s office, has finally caught up with the ‘Honourable’ Thomas O. Bondurant, Jr., as the shyster’s definitely looking a little rough.