By Donovan Castillero
SAN FRANCISCO — As unavailability hearings continued Tuesday, Dec. 9, Assistant Chief Attorney Hadi Razzaq told Judge Harry Dorfman that the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office does not have the capacity to take on additional felony cases despite mounting court pressure, warning that any court order compelling it to do so would undermine supervision and risk constitutional violations.
Razzaq’s arguments came during a continuation of hearings examining whether the Public Defender’s Office can be required to accept more cases despite declaring itself unavailable due to excessive caseloads.
Previous Vanguard coverage of these hearings is available at the Vanguard.
Razzaq opened by explaining that San Francisco is not alone in facing systemic unavailability issues, pointing to Sacramento County as an example. He told the court that Sacramento County declared itself unavailable in a total of 886 felony cases in 2024, including 18 murder cases this year.
Razzaq also argued that shifting attorneys internally is not a viable solution. He said the volume of misdemeanor cases is so high that it prevents the office from reassigning misdemeanor attorneys into the felony unit.
When Judge Dorfman asked why felony-qualified attorneys were not absorbing more cases, Razzaq responded that “qualification is not the same as capacity.” He explained that attorneys with felony qualifications, particularly managers, often step in to cover sentencing and pretrial hearings when other attorneys are unavailable.
Razzaq added that managers carry additional burdens beyond their own caseloads, including reviewing cases for attorneys who are out and assessing which attorneys, if any, have the capacity to absorb new matters. He said the attorneys in the office “have a different number of cases, but are equally busy.”
Dorfman pushed back, acknowledging the heavy workload while questioning whether managers had any capacity at all to take on more cases. He suggested that attorneys from specialized units, including immigration-related work, might need to be reassigned during extraordinary circumstances.
“I wish you had more lawyers, had more time. It’s not a perfect world,” Dorfman said. “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think an expert attorney can multitask.”
Razzaq responded that attorneys in the immigration unit are not felony-qualified and that those assigned to immigration or Clean Slate work are required to perform those duties under the terms of grant funding. Reassigning them, he said, would jeopardize the office’s ability to meet grant obligations and retain funding.
He further argued that managers must remain dedicated to supervising their respective units and warned that ordering the office to take more cases would effectively eliminate meaningful oversight. Such an order, Razzaq said, “would be telling supervisors not to supervise.”
Dorfman replied that it was not his intention to micromanage the Public Defender’s Office and acknowledged that doing so would be unconstitutional. He added, however, that he may still order the office to accept additional felony cases.
“I would say that the Public Defender must take more felony cases, but I will not reach into the office to say how to do that,” Dorfman said.
Razzaq also challenged the assumption that diversion cases are inherently less burdensome than traditional prosecutions. He explained that “diversion is only less work when diverted at arraignment,” which he said is rarely the case.
“It’s less demanding than a trial, but we still have to monitor the case,” Razzaq said, adding that diversion cases still require court appearances and advocacy to secure acceptance into programs. Diversion, he argued, is “less demanding for one party: the prosecution.”
Addressing the office’s use of second-chair attorneys, Razzaq said the practice is essential in complex and high-stakes cases. He cited homicides, cases involving life exposure, three-strikes allegations, lifetime sex offense registration, and an attorney’s first felony trial as examples where a second attorney is necessary.
“A second chair is not optional, it’s not a luxury,” Razzaq said.
Dorfman countered that the legal system is not ideal and said clients could still receive constitutionally adequate representation from a single attorney. He noted that serious cases are typically assigned to experienced lawyers and questioned whether a second chair would be mandated by law if it were truly indispensable.
“If a second chair was not optional,” Dorfman said, “wouldn’t local and state authorities require it by law?”
Razzaq responded “the law is behind on this one.”
The hearing ended before the issues were resolved and was set to continue the following day, with Razzaq expected to remain on the stand. Dorfman said the court must bring the unavailability proceedings to a conclusion soon.
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.
