Appeals court stays contempt sanction against San Francisco public defender

A Court of Appeal has stayed the enforcement of a $26,000 contempt sanction against San Francisco Public Defender Manohar Raju but denied his "premature" petition to challenge the contempt order for refusing to accept new indigent clients.

The sanction and contempt order, imposed by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman, came after Raju's office claimed unsustainable workloads prevented it from accepting new clients, arguing that inadequate counsel would threaten defendants' constitutional due process rights.

In a statement Thursday, Raju said, "I appreciate the Court of Appeal's prompt ruling.

"I stand by my decision to safeguard my clients' constitutional rights and look forward to addressing on appeal the complex legal questions this case presents, including the Public Defender's Office's authority to decline new appointments when excessive workloads make it impossible to take on additional cases ethically and effectively."

In a brief order filed Wednesday, the 1st District Court of Appeal panel denied Raju's petition challenging Dorfman's contempt order. The public defender had refused to accept at least 26 new clients despite being ordered to do so.

The panel - Division 5 Presiding Justice Teri L. Jackson, Justices Gordon B. Burns and Mark B. Simons -- ruled that the petition was premature because Raju had not yet exhausted available remedies in San Francisco Superior Court.

The sanction, which was due to be paid on Friday, was temporarily blocked while the dispute continues in Dorfman's court.

Kory DeClark of BraunHagey & Borden LLP, who represents Raju, said in a media release about the ruling: "We agree with the Court of Appeal that no sanctions should issue before a reviewing court has an opportunity to evaluate the merits of the novel issues this case raises. We are confident that, when that happens, the contempt judgment against Mr. Raju will be overturned."

Raju has drawn the support of other public defenders who disagree with Dorfman's ruling and face similar caseload problems.

Alameda County Chief Public Defender Brendon Woods said, "There shouldn't be any sanctions against the public defender. Underfunding public defense is a national crisis, and sanctions aren't going to change that. When public defenders are punished for refusing unconstitutional workloads, the right to counsel becomes a right in name only."

The stay is in effect pending further action by Dorfman, who must first rule on Raju's challenges of the contempt order before the matter can move on to the Court of Appeal, according to the panel.

The petition sought to overturn the March 24 contempt judgment and halt enforcement of the sanction. But the appellate panel said Raju must first obtain a ruling on related filings he submitted in superior court on April 1 and April 2, including a request for a stay.

"Absent exhaustion of petitioner's writ remedy in the superior court, the petition before this court is premature," Jackson wrote for the panel.

The panel indicated that Raju could return to the appellate court if he does not obtain the relief he seeks from Dorfman, but said any renewed petition must address procedural issues, including identifying the real parties in interest and providing a complete record of the lower court proceedings.

Santa Cruz County Public Defender Heather Rogers attended Raju's sanctions hearing in March along with other public defenders and attorneys.

Rogers said in an email statement, "Sanctioning a public defender for doing what is needed to ensure constitutional representation threatens to turn the right to counsel into a formality, not a reality. The lower court got this wrong.

"The Court of Appeal's swift action to stay the ruling was both critical and correct, ensuring these serious constitutional concerns are fully considered."

April Frazier Camara, president of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, said in an email Thursday, "Public defenders must have the independence to uphold their constitutional and ethical duties to their clients without undue influence from judges unilaterally deciding, based on arbitrary standards, what workloads defenders can handle. We should be focused on ensuring systems are properly resourced, not penalizing those working to uphold justice."