San Francisco Public Defender Hit with $26K Fine for Refusing Cases

A California judge imposed a $26,000 contempt fine on San Francisco's public defender for continuing to reject new cases despite a court order. The public defender claims his office is overwhelmed with excessive caseloads due to increased prosecutions and inadequate staffing.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A California judge has imposed a $26,000 contempt fine on San Francisco’s chief public defender for continuing to turn away new cases in defiance of a court directive issued earlier this year.

Public Defender Mano Raju started refusing to take on certain defendants in fresh felony and misdemeanor matters last May, claiming his office faces an overwhelming caseload due to rising prosecutions and inadequate personnel. He is demanding additional funding for more lawyers or asking the court to dismiss some cases filed by District Attorney Brooke Jenkins.

“Every member of my team could cut their workload in half, and they would still have more than a full-time job,” Raju told The Associated Press.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman directed Raju in January to cease turning down cases, but the public defender defied the order. This month, Dorfman held him in contempt. On Tuesday, the judge imposed a $1,000 penalty for each of the first 26 cases Raju rejected following the January directive and scheduled another hearing in April to impose additional fines. Raju stated he intends to appeal the decision and will continue refusing some new cases.

Public defenders and support staff from throughout California filled the courtroom to show solidarity with Raju. He informed the judge that the excessive workload compromises the quality of legal representation his office can deliver, violating defendants’ human rights and harming his staff.

“People and their families get hurt when we can’t provide the representation we should and our staff suffers the residual trauma,” he said.

The standoff places Raju, a progressive politician and California’s sole elected public defender, in conflict with Jenkins, who argues his actions are disrupting the justice system and could result in dangerous defendants being freed due to lack of legal counsel.

“Their objective is to disrupt the system, it’s to cause chaos, it is to bottleneck the courthouse,” Jenkins said.

Jurisdictions from Oregon to Massachusetts have been grappling with public defender shortages for years, with Oregon’s Supreme Court issuing a February decision that will lead to dismissing over 1,400 cases due to delayed representation. However, the public confrontation between Raju, the district attorney and the judge is exceptionally hostile and politically charged.

This dispute follows years of public safety debates in San Francisco. Mayor Daniel Lurie won election in 2024 promising to rebuild the city’s damaged reputation after years of negative national coverage, pledging to address street conditions. His victory came after voters recalled prosecutor Chesa Boudin in 2022 over concerns about his lenient approach to street crime. Jenkins succeeded him and has increased prosecutions — filing 8,000 felony and misdemeanor cases last year compared to approximately 5,600 in 2021.

Raju is employing disruption as a negotiating tactic during challenging budget discussions rather than presenting a legitimate public safety policy disagreement, according to Jason McDaniel, a San Francisco State University political science professor writing a book about city politics. Lurie faces a $400 million budget shortfall.

“If this really were a policy fight rather than a fight for resources, that would be something that I think voters would really get upset about because more progressive positions on law enforcement have received a lot of pushback from the majority of voters in San Francisco,” McDaniel said.

While San Francisco’s violent crime statistics are among the lowest in recent years, drug-related offenses, petty theft and other minor violations remain widespread. Jenkins stated prosecution levels have returned to pre-pandemic standards because, unlike her predecessor, she enforces all laws.

An increase in prosecutions of minor offenses, combined with growing amounts of digital and video evidence requiring review, are creating an unsustainable workload, Raju explained. He criticized Jenkins for “clogging up the courts” and said his lawyers work excessive hours, skip vacations and experience serious health problems due to crushing workloads.

Raju referenced a 2023 national study on public defender workload by the RAND Corporation that determined excessive caseloads violate ethical standards and harm defendants. He said his lawyers handle an average of 60 felony cases and 135 misdemeanor cases simultaneously, far exceeding the maximum of 40 felony and 80 misdemeanor cases recommended in a 2025 study by the Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center at Southern Methodist University.

Excessive workloads among public defenders frequently result in defendants waiting unnecessarily long to resolve their cases, he explained. He noted that no one in San Francisco has been left without legal representation so far because his office works with city-contracted private attorneys. The Bar Association of San Francisco, which has intervened to represent some defendants, informed the judge its lawyers are now at full capacity and cannot take additional clients.

Dorfman concluded Raju’s office has sufficient staff to manage the workload and observed that some supervising public defenders could handle more cases. He also suggested the Public Defender’s Office should cease assigning two attorneys to certain felony cases, which Raju said occurs occasionally for training purposes.

The studies suggesting public defense caseload limits cited by Raju merit consideration, but “they are not California law,” Dorfman wrote in his January decision.

He stated in court Tuesday that while he determined Raju has acted in good faith, “that does not mean that I’m going to retreat or stay a court order.”

“The court is not a bystander in this,” he said. “The law compels the court to appoint a public defender when necessary.”