SF Judge Orders Public Defender to Pay $26K in Contempt Fines

A San Francisco County Superior Court judge, Harry Dorfman, ordered the city’s public defender to pay $26,000 in fines on Tuesday after ruling that his repeated refusals to accept new criminal cases each constituted a separate act of contempt — the latest escalation in a dispute that began nearly a year ago, when the office first started turning away cases.

Mano Raju, the San Francisco public defender, had defied his orders 26 times, Dorfman found, assessing a $1,000 fine per count and ordering payment by April 3. Raju said he intends to appeal and made clear outside the courthouse ahead of the hearing that even after being held in contempt, he has continued to turn away cases one day a week.

“Our view is that his order is an illegal order,” Raju told reporters. “So one day a week, we have declined to take some of the cases.”

The dispute has been ongoing since May 2025, when the public defender’s office first declared itself unavailable one day a week due to excessive caseloads. The 26 counts of contempt stem from refusals between January 12 and February 10, according to court documents. Raju said active misdemeanor cases have grown 78% and felony cases 56% since 2019 — and that each case now requires far more work than it once did.

Dorfman acknowledged receiving 45 letters from legal experts around the country urging him to reverse his contempt finding — and said he read them all but was not persuaded. He said he had concluded from earlier hearings that Raju’s office had available attorneys and that once he reached that finding, he was obligated to issue the order.

“And Mr. Raju, you have defied every order,” Dorfman said, ruling that each refusal constitutes a separate act of contempt.

Kory DeClark, Raju’s attorney, argued the fines are the wrong tool for what is fundamentally a systemic funding problem. He told the judge the court “doesn’t have the contempt power to hold the [mayor’s office or district attorney],” and that imposing monetary sanctions on an office already starved of resources “will just make it worse.” If any sanction was warranted at all, DeClark said, it should be $1.

Inside the courtroom, Deputy Public Defender Tal Klement, who has worked at the office since 2003, described working 50 to 60 hours a week on top of court time and going to physical therapy for shoulder pain while raising two children.

“My excessive caseload impacts the quality of my representation,” Klement testified.

Deputy Public Defender Seth Meisels, a 21-year veteran of the office, pointed to the sheer volume of digital evidence attorneys must now review in every case — body-worn camera footage, surveillance video, forensic records.

“It has become increasingly difficult to determine which cases will go to trial,” he said. “But we still have to do the work.”

Outside the courthouse before the hearing, public defenders from Contra Costa, Alameda, Sacramento, Sonoma, Santa Cruz and Yolo counties gathered in solidarity with Raju. San Joaquin County Public Defender Judyanne Vallado, whose office declared itself unavailable for homicide and sex offenses carrying potential life sentences last year, said the move ultimately helped clear the court’s docket — not just her office’s caseload.

“Declaring unavailable isn’t just about helping the public defender’s office,” she said. “It’s helping the entire court justice system.”

Alameda County Public Defender Brendon Woods said he is considering taking the same steps as Raju if conditions in his office reach a breaking point.

“At some point in time, we have to say no,” he said.

Raju said his office is in conversations with City Hall about a five-year plan to bring staffing closer to the standards set by a 2023 national workload study, which found the office needs 36 additional attorneys, along with more investigators, social workers and support staff.

He acknowledged the plan would still not bring the office to parity with the district attorney’s budget.