By Donovan Castillero, Raghav Bordia, and Jayden Joeckel
SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Public Defender’s Office warned that the city’s public defense system is collapsing under excessive workloads, forcing it to declare itself unavailable for new cases on certain days and potentially leading to the release of some incarcerated people because there are not enough defense attorneys to take their cases.
At a public hearing before Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman, leaders from the Public Defender’s Office said they are ethically bound to refuse new appointments when caseloads make it impossible to provide competent, diligent representation to existing clients. The District Attorney’s Office countered that public defenders should continue representing all indigent defendants despite the strain.
Public defenders cited an opinion by the State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, which advises that if a public defender “believes that his deputies are unable to adequately prepare their cases because of excessive caseloads or lack of resources,” the office must address the issue—through reassignment, redeployment, hiring, or declaring unavailability—and “may not countenance excessive caseloads to the point that clients do not attain competent representation.”
Assistant Chief Attorney Hadi Razzaq told the court that the workload has surged since 2019 and that each case now requires more attorney time due to complex laws and digital evidence. The total number of active cases has increased from 5,039 in January 2019 to 7,421 in October 2025—a 47 percent rise. Active felonies rose 40 percent, while active misdemeanors surged 56 percent.
Razzaq identified two main drivers: changes in law such as the California Racial Justice Act and the explosion of digital evidence, including body-worn camera footage, which he said is “extremely time-consuming” but necessary to review thoroughly. He also said overcharging by prosecutors adds to the strain, noting that half of felony jury trials this year ended in acquittals, hung juries, or mistrials, with only 27 percent resulting in straight guilty verdicts.
Misdemeanor trials have produced similar outcomes, with just 24 percent ending in guilty verdicts. Razzaq called these results “a definitive sign of overcharging and overfiling.” Yet, he said, taking more cases to trial—something he encouraged given recent successes—further intensifies the workload.
Rani Singh, chief legal counsel for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office, said the department shares a “collateral interest” with public defenders because, while they do not represent clients, they must “house them.” She described defendants appearing for arraignment only to leave without being assigned an attorney.
When the Public Defender’s Office declares itself unavailable, cases are diverted to the court-appointed conflict panel of private attorneys. But that system is near its breaking point.
Julie Traun, director of court programs, told the court the conflict panel typically receives 10 to 20 new cases per week but has recently seen as many as 48. “This is the first time we couldn’t handle all the cases coming our way,” she said. The panel, designed as a short-term backstop, has become a primary outlet amid an impasse over funding between City Hall and the Public Defender’s Office.
Traun said the panel has grown modestly—by two full-time lawyers and 18 backup lawyers recruited from other counties—but remains overburdened. “In a meeting with lawyers, I asked if anyone could take more cases. No one raised their hands,” she said, concluding, “We are an overburdened justice system.”
Judge Dorfman suggested that supervising attorneys could temporarily take on more files and noted that similar crises have occurred before. Razzaq disagreed, calling this “an unending crisis” and saying temporary fixes won’t solve it if case numbers continue rising.
Between May 7 and Oct. 23, 2025, the Public Defender’s Office declared unavailability for about 11 percent of felony cases and 15 percent of misdemeanor cases, describing the measure as narrow and ethically necessary.
Dorfman questioned whether some new cases could be distributed among panel lawyers since some may settle quickly, but Razzaq responded that “life exposure cases are themselves, extreme circumstances,” emphasizing the stakes involved.
Razzaq said declaring unavailability has “helped a bad situation from getting worse” but has not solved the problem.
Chief Assistant District Attorney Ana Gonzalez argued that the Public Defender’s Office must continue taking cases to ensure representation for all indigent defendants—a stance public defenders say ignores their ethical obligations. Gonzalez repeatedly accused the office of misrepresentation and questioned whether it was acting “in good faith or manipulation.”
Judge Dorfman said he believed the office was acting in good faith, but Gonzalez continued to allege mismanagement. She denied allegations that prosecutors were “piling on” charges and argued that the court should determine whether the Public Defender’s Office is using its resources adequately rather than whether it is understaffed.
Without additional staff or resources, both the Public Defender’s Office and conflict panel warned that the crisis will worsen. Traun urged immediate funding for both offices, with particular attention to misdemeanor filings that are swelling court dockets.
For now, the system remains at an impasse: prosecutors pressing forward, public defenders constrained by ethical duties, and the court searching for short-term relief while long-term funding questions go unanswered.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
