Appeals court stays $26,000 contempt fine against San Francisco public defender

At the Hall of Justice, the fight over Mano Raju’s caseload moved into the First District Court of Appeal, which on April 10 stayed enforcement of a $26,000 contempt fine against the San Francisco public defender. The order blocked collection of the sanction the day it was due and gave Raju’s office immediate breathing room while the legal challenge continues.

The fine came from San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Harry M. Dorfman, who found that Raju’s office had repeatedly turned away appointments in felony cases. Court filings tied the 26 contempt counts to refusals made between January 12 and February 10, 2026, with each count carrying a $1,000 penalty. A separate appellate stay had already been issued on April 8, then renewed on April 10 after the superior court denied some of the office’s challenges.

For Raju, the stay is more than a procedural pause. It keeps $26,000 from leaving a public defender’s office that says it is already stretched thin by volume and complexity. In its Fiscal Year 2024-25 annual report, the office said it operated with a $56,698,180 budget, 244 employees, 7,419 cases and 197 trials completed despite not being fully staffed. The office and its allies have said caseloads have climbed sharply since 2019, with public reporting citing increases of 56% in active felony matters and 78% in active misdemeanor cases.

Raju said he appreciated the appellate court’s decision to halt the fine and argued that people accused of crimes are entitled to counsel with the time and resources needed for effective representation. His appellate team includes private counsel from BraunHagey & Borden, including Kory DeClark, who has said the reviewing court should have the chance to weigh the novel legal issues before sanctions are enforced.

The dispute has exposed a wider fault line in San Francisco courtrooms: how far a judge can go in compelling a public defender to accept new work when the office says doing so would make effective representation impossible. National legal-aid groups, including the National Legal Aid & Defender Association and the American Council of Chief Defenders, condemned the sanction and warned that taking money from a defense office only worsens the shortage it is meant to address. Raju has said his office needs about 36 additional lawyers to meet workload standards.

The pressure has spread beyond the public defender’s office. The Bar Association of San Francisco’s conflicts panel, which steps in when the public defender cannot take a case, has absorbed more than 800 felony matters and has said it is at or near capacity. The appellate stay does not settle whether Raju was right to refuse appointments, but it prevents immediate punishment while the courts decide whether a public defender can be held in contempt for managing an overloaded office.