San Francisco public defender found in contempt of court

The San Francisco Public Defender has been found in contempt of court for ignoring a judge's order telling him to accept new indigent clients amid a claimed "workload crisis" at the office.

Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman said at a contempt hearing Tuesday he was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Public Defender Manohar Raju had committed contempt by directing his staff to "ignore a lawful court order."

"I do find Mr. Raju in contempt of court for not following a lawful order of which you had notice," Dorfman said.

In January this year, Dorfman issued an order compelling the Public Defender's office to accept new clients, a practice it had halted in May 2025 citing an unworkable caseload and too few attorneys available to provide constitutionally mandated counsel to indigent clients.

In finding Raju in contempt, Dorfman made it clear that jail time was not an option, but that monetary sanctions were available to him. A hearing on the sanctions will be scheduled soon.

Raju's Chief Assistant Matt Gonzalez was initially included in the contempt proceedings, but Dorfman said, "I'm only going to focus on Raju, the Public Defender, No. 1."

Raju and Gonzalez had been ordered to show cause on 28 counts as to why they should not be held in contempt. After Gonzalez was dismissed from the orders, Dorfman said he needed to decide whether it should be considered a continuous contempt or 28 separate instances.

"There's a big difference," Dorfman said. "It could be a lot of money since monetary sanctions are available here."

Kory DeClark of BraunHagey & Borden LLP, who is representing Raju and Gonzalez, said in the hallway after the hearing that Dorfman's logic was "puzzling."

"I was hopeful that we could convince him today that the public defender's office had taken a decision to defend its clients' constitutional rights," DeClark said. "But we weren't able to, which I was disappointed about. But given the position he took in the appointment order, I don't know that I was surprised."

DeClark said until Dorfman decides on sanctions, the matter is not considered adjudicated. His team plans to submit a writ of judicial review to the Court of Appeal and seek a stay on proceedings.

During the hearing, Raju said he would employ the city attorney's office to assist with the appeal.

"This is a resource issue," Raju said. "The city attorney will drain precious resources defending us on appeal."

Dorfman said he found Raju in contempt beyond reasonable doubt on three elements: There was a lawful order, a notice of that order and a refusal to follow the order.

According to Dorfman's order to show cause, the Public Defender's Office had refused last year to accept more than 250 felony cases claiming caseloads prevented its lawyers from providing effective representation.

As a result, the court appointed private attorneys from the Bar Association of San Francisco's conflicts panel -- lawyers typically used only when the public defender has an ethical conflict. Those panel attorneys absorbed more than 800 felony cases and said they were also reaching unsustainable workloads

During Tuesday's hearing, Raju was sworn in and said, "We're doing it to honor our obligation. We're doing it to make sure clients are not ripped from their families. It's not a decision we take lightly but one we feel obligated to take."

Dorfman told Raju he thought the Public Defenders' Office was "well-run" but ultimately found that attorneys were doubling up in some cases and trials when they could be assigned to take on new clients.

When asked by DeClark to look at the newly released National Public Defense Workload Study that suggests a safe number of working hours for defense attorneys and case law that says objective assessments of attorneys' workloads must be considered when making a ruling on whether their availability was a conflict of interest, Dorfman said, "The studies are instructive and aspirational but not California law, nor an appellate decision."