A judge levied $26,000 in fines against Raju today in response to SF public defenders taking a stand against unsustainable workloads, which threaten San Franciscans’ Constitutional rights to due process.
SAN FRANCISCO — Today in San Francisco Superior Court, numerous chief public defenders from across California stood with San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju and his office, reflecting the nationwide efforts by public defenders to demand resources equal to those of prosecutors in criminal courts. At today’s hearing, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman sanctioned Raju by fining him $26,000—calculated as $1,000 for the 26 people the Public Defender’s office has declined to represent since January, when Dorfman ordered the office to take on those cases. Dorfman’s decision to sanction Raju (and to hold him in contempt of court on March 10) came in response to the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office declining to take on a small number of cases due to unsustainable workloads. These crushing workloads prevent public defenders from providing the effective representation that the U.S. Constitution requires of them.
Here is a statement from Public Defender Raju regarding the judge’s monetary sanctions:
“The San Francisco Public Defender’s Office remains unwavering in our constitutional duty to provide effective assistance of counsel to every person we represent. We serve a unique role in our justice system as guardians of due process. Having excessive caseloads is a conflict of interest for our existing clients, which is why declaring ourselves unavailable in a limited number of new cases remains necessary to meet our constitutional obligations until we become fully staffed and fairly funded.
Sanctions cannot change the reality that more cases are being filed and they are taking significantly longer to resolve. In San Francisco, active cases have risen 65 percent since 2019–due in part to cases being mischarged or overcharged and ever-expansive surveillance evidence to review. The absurdity of being fined when we are already underfunded is counterproductive and a further injustice to our clients and our office.
We have acted in good faith throughout this inquiry and continue to take on the vast majority of new felony cases while carefully assessing our capacity. Judge Dorfman has repeatedly praised our office’s professionalism and our highly skilled staff, yet has chosen to disregard our expertise and the modern demands of public defense.
Every day across the country, poor people are disproportionately prosecuted, take unfair plea deals, and are unjustly punished because public defenders are understaffed, underfunded, and overburdened. Public defenders carry workloads far higher than the standards set by the National Public Defense Workload Study. That is why states like Washington and Oregon have recognized that excessive caseloads make effective representation impossible.
We look forward to appealing this ruling to protect our staff and our clients’ constitutional rights. Our office will continue working toward a lawful and lasting solution, including securing the funding needed from the City to hire additional attorneys and staff, while serving our clients and all San Franciscans with excellence.”
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:
San Francisco’s criminal courts have faced an overwhelming increase in cases filed by the District Attorney’s Office—a nearly 65 percent increase since 2019. This surge has had predictable results: filling the jails to over capacity and increasing public defender workloads to a breaking point. Other partners in the courts have felt the strain. Court clerks recently went on strike, citing “historic,” unmanageable workloads.
In May 2025, the San Francisco Public Defender’s office made the difficult decision to declare unavailable in a limited number of new cases each week. While the office continued to accept appointment in the vast majority of cases, this limited unavailability was necessary to ensure that attorneys can still meet their duty to provide effective assistance of counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. As with most public defender offices across the country, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office remains grossly underfunded compared to district attorneys and other law enforcement agencies.
RECENT OP-EDS ABOUT THIS SITUATION:
- San Francisco Must Protect Public Defense by Pamela Metzger, Lori James, and Lisa M. Wayne, in the Davis Vanguard.
- Why S.F. public defender Mano Raju is Justified in Refusing Cases by Kate Chatfield, California Public Defenders Association, in the San Francisco Chronicle.
- Why the Public Defender’s Office can’t take all the felony cases the Superior Court is forcing on us by Matt Gonzalez, chief attorney, San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, in 48 Hills.
- We can’t claim to value justice while starving public defense by Mano Raju, San Francisco Public Defender, in SF Bay View.
- San Francisco Public Defender Made the Right Call to Limit Public Defender Caseloads, by professors Robert C. Boruchowitz and Robert S. Chang, in Daily Journal.
###