San Francisco Public Defender’s refusal to accept new criminal cases moves toward contempt proceedings in court

A rare clash over representation and court orders

San Francisco’s Public Defender’s Office is facing potential contempt proceedings after Public Defender Mano Raju and Chief Attorney Matt Gonzalez declined to accept some new criminal appointments, despite a court directive to resume taking cases. The dispute has escalated into an institutional confrontation between the defense function mandated to represent indigent defendants and a court system seeking to keep felony and misdemeanor calendars moving.

The conflict centers on whether the public defender may refuse appointments when the office believes caseloads are too high to provide constitutionally effective assistance of counsel, and whether a judge can compel the office to accept most new cases absent traditional conflicts of interest.

What the court has said and why contempt is being considered

The standoff follows months of litigation and hearings in San Francisco Superior Court addressing the office’s “unavailability” declarations. The court has signaled that refusing appointments can leave defendants without counsel at critical stages, delaying proceedings and creating pressure on in-custody defendants who may be held while awaiting representation.

In October 2025, the court system publicly announced temporary changes to criminal case processes due to the unavailability of public defenders and the growing inability of private attorneys filling the gap to continue taking appointments. The court warned that the shortage could force releases from pretrial custody when defendants cannot be provided counsel within constitutional requirements.

The dispute has unfolded against a broader operational strain: when no attorney is available, cases may be continued day-to-day while defendants remain in custody pending assignment of counsel.

The public defender’s caseload rationale

Raju has argued that the office is required to protect existing clients from diminished representation and that taking additional cases can make effective advocacy impossible. The office has cited rising case volumes since 2019 and the increasing complexity of modern criminal defense work, including the need to review and litigate digital evidence such as body-worn camera video, phone records, and social media material.

The office has also described a funding and staffing mismatch that, in its view, prevents compliance with workload benchmarks used in parts of the public defense field. It has maintained that it continues to accept most cases while declining a subset when staffing constraints reach a critical point.

What prosecutors and the justice system argue

Prosecutors have disputed the premise that the public defender lacks the capacity to meet its obligations, arguing the office has sufficient resources and that refusals risk undermining public confidence and public safety. In court hearings, prosecution representatives have characterized the refusal practice as incompatible with the public defender’s role in ensuring counsel is provided promptly for people who cannot afford private attorneys.

What comes next

• The judge overseeing the dispute is expected to decide whether the refusal to accept certain appointments violated a court order.

• The public defender’s leadership has indicated it will continue to challenge orders it believes conflict with ethical duties and constitutional requirements.

• Meanwhile, the practical impact remains on defendants awaiting representation, the private-attorney panel that has absorbed overflow cases, and the court’s ability to process felony and misdemeanor calendars without extended delays.

The contempt question now stands as a focal point for how San Francisco’s criminal courts will balance docket management with the constitutional right to effective counsel when legal defense capacity is under strain.