Access to The Champion archive is one of many exclusive member benefits. It’s normally restricted to just NACDL members. However, this content, and others like it, is available to everyone in order to educate the public on why criminal justice reform is a necessity.
In March, San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju was held in contempt and fined. Raju is appealing the ruling, and an appellate court has stayed the fines. The contempt order reignited a long-simmering debate at the intersection of constitutional rights, ethical obligations, and systemic capacity limits within public defense. At the core, the controversy stems from a decision by the public defender’s office to refuse additional case appointments, citing overwhelming caseloads that, in its view, made it impossible to provide constitutionally effective representation. The court’s response — holding the public defender in contempt — raises profound questions about how the criminal legal system allocates responsibility when structural deficiencies collide with individual rights.
Like all attorneys, public defenders are bound by dual mandates: to uphold their ethical duties to their clients and to comply with court orders. The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to the effective assistance of counsel, not merely the presence of an attorney. When public defender offices become overburdened, the risk of harm is not abstract. Excessive caseloads can lead to truncated investigations, limited client communication, and pressured plea negotiations — all of which undermine the fairness of proceedings. National standards, including those from professional organizations, have long warned against precisely this scenario.
The public defender’s office in San Francisco determined that it had reached a breaking point. It said its defense teams were already carrying caseloads exceeding recommended limits, and additional appointments would cause them to fail both current and new clients. The office did not frame the refusal to accept new cases as defiance. Instead, the refusal was a necessary step to protect clients’ constitutional rights and to adhere to the ethical rules that prohibit taking on more work than can be competently handled.
The court, however, viewed the matter through a different lens. Judges are tasked with ensuring cases move forward and that defendants are represented. When the public defender declines appointments, the court’s options are limited. Delays can jeopardize speedy trial rights, and appointing conflict counsel or private attorneys can strain already limited resources. From the court’s perspective, the refusal to accept cases risks disrupting the administration of justice.
This clash highlights a structural tension rather than a simple dispute between a judge and a defender. Public defender systems across the country are chronically underfunded and understaffed. While prosecutors and law enforcement agencies receive more robust resources, defender offices are forced to do more with less. The result is a system that relies on the goodwill and endurance of individual attorneys to bridge the gap — a model that is increasingly unsustainable.
The contempt finding also raises important ethical considerations. Attorneys are governed by rules that require competence, diligence, and communication. Taking on cases that cannot be properly managed exposes defenders to disciplinary action, even as refusing cases can lead to judicial sanctions. This places public defenders in an untenable position; they are caught between conflicting obligations with no clear resolution.
From a policy standpoint, the situation underscores the need for systemic reform. Meaningful change requires investment in public defense, including increased funding, expanded staffing, and structural safeguards that prevent caseloads from reaching crises levels.
For criminal defense lawyers, the San Francisco episode serves both as a warning and a call to action. It illustrates the risks inherent in a system that depends on overextended lawyers to uphold fundamental rights. It also highlights the importance of collective advocacy through organizations like NACDL to address the root causes of excessive caseloads.
Ultimately, the question is not whether public defenders must follow court orders or whether courts must ensure the effective administration of justice. Both are essential. The deeper issue is whether the system provides the resources necessary to fulfill these obligations without compromising constitutional guarantees. Until that question is resolved, conflicts like the one in San Francisco are certain to recur, placing defenders, judges, and most importantly, clients, in an increasing precarious position.
About the Author
Andy Birrell is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a Fellow of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers. He represents clients in all phases of criminal law and related matters from grand jury investigations through trials and appeals in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Birrell is also a seasoned appellate lawyer, having argued before the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Andrew S. Birrell (NACDL Life Member)
Birrell Law Firm, PLLC
Minneapolis, Minnesota
612-238-1939
andy@birrell.law
https://www.birrellcriminaldefense.com
