A San Francisco judge has ordered Public Defender Manu Raju to pay a $26,000 fine after finding him in contempt of court for his office’s failure to represent all indigent clients the court has asked it to.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman fined the elected official $1,000 for each instance of failing to provide a lawyer to 26 felony defendants this year. He must pay the fine by April 10.
“I am not telling Mr. Raju how to organize your office … but I do conclude that you have available lawyers to handle felony cases that you are refusing,” said Dorfman, adding that he would not “retreat from enforcing court order.”
Raju sat beside his attorney during the proceeding Tuesday, which was watched by a packed courtroom, including a handful of public defenders from Northern California. Raju said he plans to appeal and expects a stay before the deadline.
The fine is an escalation of a months-long saga that has pitted the public defender’s office against what Raju claims is an overwhelmed court system that has left him unable to ethically represent clients.
Since May, Manu’s office has refused to take new clients on one day each week because of his overworked staff.
Dorfman, who found that there are public defenders available to take cases five days a week, found Raju in contempt March 10 for continuing to refuse to take clients.
“It was a disappointing ruling. We’re anticipating a higher court to stay his decision,” Raju said.
Judge Harry Dorfman found Raju in contempt of court March 10 and fined him Tuesday. | Source: Michael Macor/The SF Chronicle/Getty Images
Prior to the ruling about the fine, several staffers of Raju’s office, including a lawyer, investigator, and social worker, spoke to the judge about their inability to take on new cases.
“It feels like blame and punishment is only being put on the public defender,” said felony attorney Tal Klement. He said the courts are overwhelmed by systemic issues that are out of his office’s control, like court availability, jail visiting hours for clients, and the district attorney’s charging decisions.
Klement said he has 161 open cases, regularly works 60 hours a week, and has developed health and relationship problems.
Raju and his department say national studies show that they are understaffed to meet the demands of a far more resourced DA’s office that has refused to reduce the caseload by taking actions such as settling cases.
Meanwhile, the DA’s office has said that the public defender’s office is making a political choice in its refusal to take cases.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Ana Gonzalez said that when caseloads have skyrocketed in the past, no such emergency was declared. She said the number of new felony cases has been flat for four years.
She also argued that many of the court delays are due to the public defender prolonging cases by choice and refusing to settle cases.
In a prior hearing, Hadi Razzaq of the public defender’s office said the attorneys have myriad duties beyond trying cases. He said the office’s 47 felony attorneys each have an average of 61 cases, and taking on more would mean being unable to properly represent their clients. By comparison, the Public Defender has 125 lawyers while the DA has 160.
The public defender’s refusals have had a host of downstream effects. Fill-in private attorneys, who have taken on more than 600 additional cases, have also run out of resources to represent indigent defendants. This leaves many defendants lingering in jail until an attorney becomes available.
“We have now had to transport clients day after day after day,” Rani Singh, chief legal counsel at the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, said at one of the hearings. “Our deputies have been told by clients that they are sick of waiting for attorneys, and some have refused to come to court because they don’t expect to get attorneys.”