SAN FRANCISCO — In continued unavailability hearings before Judge Harry Dorfman on Wednesday, Dec. 10, Chief Attorney Matt Gonzalez forcefully challenged the court’s authority to order the Public Defender’s Office to accept additional cases, warning such an order would violate attorneys’ limits and clients’ constitutional rights.
Previous Vanguard coverage of these hearings can be found at:
The hearing began with Assistant Chief Attorney Hadi Razzaq yielding the podium to Gonzalez, who immediately made clear his position that the judge has no authority to order the Public Defender’s Office to take on more felony cases.
“It is unfair to ask lawyers who are working overtime without compensation to do more,” he said. “It is unfair to force our clients to waive time,” Gonzalez added, arguing that issuing such an order would not only overburden attorneys but also violate clients’ right to a speedy trial.
Gonzalez pointed out that the Public Defender’s Office has cooperated with the court throughout its inquiry, as have some nonparties such as the Conflict Panel. However, he said much of the information provided to the court by other parties, including the District Attorney’s Office, is inaccurate. “Many of the non-parties send information to you without confirming the accuracy of it, or providing purely anecdotal information,” Gonzalez said.
The Public Defender’s Office is not solely responsible for the current crisis, Gonzalez argued. “We have dealt with incredible inefficiencies within the courts,” he said, explaining that trials can last far longer than necessary due to judges being on vacation or dedicating only half days to trial proceedings. “The court has to address judges going dark on Friday or half-day trials,” he said.
Gonzalez also criticized the use of a master calendar courtroom for misdemeanors. “There’s no reason for a master calendar in Department 17, it just creates a logjam,” he said, explaining that attorneys often spend hours waiting at the podium to call a case that may last only a few minutes before being sent to another courtroom.
“There’s the issue of late discovery, which creates postponement,” Gonzalez said, noting that delayed disclosures force attorneys to pivot at the last minute and alter trial strategies.
Gonzalez added that the court could take additional steps to help address the crisis. “The court could also limit lines on the arraignment calendar,” he said, pointing out that the Public Defender’s Office is limited to bringing 30 clients per week into the Clean Slate program. He argued similar limits should apply to the District Attorney’s Office, which he said is prosecuting frivolous cases. “They are wasting our resources to litigate these cases,” Gonzalez said.
The court, Gonzalez said, could also use its authority to ask City Hall to fund overtime for public defenders, pay for temporary positions, or reach out to private attorneys to assist the office.
Gonzalez suggested that if the court’s priority is felony matters, “the court could use its power to suspend nonviolent misdemeanor proceedings,” allowing the Public Defender’s Office to shift attorneys from its misdemeanor unit to felony cases. He said this could be done safely and noted that “hundreds of 1385s are granted because the DA doesn’t want to actually try the case,” citing the number of cases dismissed shortly before trial.
Gonzalez also addressed what he described as the Conflict Panel’s failure to provide critical information for the hearings. He said it is “not fair that these hearings have been going since October, but the court is not telling the panel to gather information.” That information, Gonzalez said, could show the panel is not at capacity. According to Public Defender figures, he said, the panel would have picked up only “4.4 felony cases per felony-eligible attorney on the panel,” far fewer than any public defender, and some of those cases have likely already been resolved.
Gonzalez continued by arguing that the court appeared focused almost exclusively on what the Public Defender’s Office could do to resolve the crisis. “Why can’t we ask judges and DAs to make hard decisions?” he asked. He also said the level of scrutiny was uneven, with the court probing deeply into the internal workings of the Public Defender’s Office while declining to do the same with other parties. The court, he said, is “not willing to do that for some parties, but will ask the public defenders to do it.
“You don’t want to micromanage the office, but you are still doing that,” Gonzalez said. While he acknowledged that he believes the court is acting in good faith, he argued that by “cherry-picking which decisions you like or don’t like,” the court would still be micromanaging the office if it ordered public defenders to take more cases and expected them to abandon practices the court disagrees with.
Gonzalez concluded by urging the court not to issue such an order. “We are asking you not to issue an order compelling us to take cases,” he said, adding that the office would take a firm stand against any such directive. “We will not comply with that order,” Gonzalez said. “If issued, we will fight the legality of that order.”
Judge Dorfman said he understood the Public Defender’s Office’s position and stated that he would continue hearing from other parties before making a decision.
The hearings are scheduled to resume Monday, Dec. 15.
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.
