Raju v. Superior Court
Brief Details
- Case No.: A176141
- Brief Filed: June 10, 2026
- Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal of the State of California
Key Topics in the Brief
Briefs
The trial court lacked authority to hold the San Francisco Public Defender in contempt for declining appointments the office determined it could not ethically accept. A court’s appointment authority does not permit it to override counsel’s professional judgment about capacity. Attorneys and defender supervisors—not courts—are best positioned to assess whether additional cases can be accepted consistent with ethical and constitutional obligations. Requiring defenders to accept appointments and then seek withdrawal case-by-case is unworkable and harms clients. Public defense is the foundation of the right to counsel, and its independence is constitutionally required. Effective advocacy requires time, client trust, investigation, and continuous engagement that cannot be compressed. Excessive caseloads create foreseeable but often invisible harms. The contempt ruling would worsen the public defense crisis by chilling defender independence and accelerating attrition. Courts must ensure effective representation, not manage or coerce the defense function.
Author(s)
Brian C. McComas, The Law Office of B.C. McComas, LLP, San Francisco, CA; John T. Philipsborn, San Francisco, CA
