A San Francisco Superior Court judge who spent years vocalizing a pervasive racial slur from the bench and ordering attorneys to repeat it during proceedings has agreed to abandon the practice, court leadership confirmed this week.
The policy shift regarding Judge Harry Dorfman came through an official announcement from the San Francisco Superior Court, which is led by Presiding Judge Rochelle East. The court issued a statement outlining a renewed institutional commitment to preventing the use of the slur during legal proceedings and confirmed that Dorfman will comply with the standard going forward.
In its public communication, the court acknowledged the deep historical trauma and lasting harm associated with the slur in any circumstance. Court officials emphasized that while maintaining an accurate verbatim transcript is essential to the judicial process, judges and practitioners must exercise reasonable discretion when handling such inflammatory language, even in instances where no statutory violations have occurred.
The court’s formal intervention arrived just three days after a report detailed Dorfman’s persistent use of the term, placing his courtroom demeanor under intense public scrutiny and prompting swift administrative action.
Dorfman, a 69-year-old white jurist, was appointed to the bench in 2013 by former California Governor Jerry Brown. Prior to his judicial appointment, he worked as a deputy district attorney in San Francisco and served as a law professor.
Unlike the vast majority of trial judges who routinely substitute euphemisms like "the n-word" when reviewing sensitive testimony or reading evidence aloud, Dorfman had insisted on speaking the full slur in open court since at least 2020. He long maintained that complete verbal recitation was necessary to establish an unfiltered factual record and evaluate the underlying motives of speakers in criminal matters.
Court records demonstrate several confrontations arising from his stance. In one hearing held last November involving a criminal defendant receiving mental health treatment who allegedly threatened police officers and bystanders, Deputy Public Defender Elly Leggatt attempted to quote her client's statements without pronouncing the slur.
According to transcripts, Dorfman interjected, reciting the complete slur aloud to correct the defense attorney’s phrasing. When Leggatt requested that the judge refrain from using the offensive word, Dorfman dismissed the objection, asserting that quoting case evidence directly did not constitute an insult or cause offense. Following the exchange, the judge ordered the defendant detained without bail.
In a separate legal proceeding, an attorney attempted to use the euphemism while summarizing witness statements. Dorfman halted the line of questioning, directing the lawyer to state the explicit slur instead, arguing that the court system must reflect real-world language directly.
The recurring conduct drew formal resistance from San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, who lodged a disciplinary grievance against Dorfman in 2022 with the California Commission on Judicial Performance. Raju requested that the oversight body issue an official censure or admonition and mandate specialized training for the judge.
However, the state disciplinary commission dismissed the matter in 2024, releasing a brief, single-sentence determination stating it had discovered no viable basis to take punitive action against Dorfman.
Following the state agency’s dismissal, the Public Defender’s Office petitioned San Francisco Superior Court leadership to address Dorfman’s behavior internally, but the court initially declined to take corrective steps and provided no formal explanation for its inaction.
Reacting to the court’s reversal this week, Raju expressed frustration over the delay, noting that it required significant public pressure and media coverage for court administrators to address the issue. Raju added that his office will closely monitor future proceedings to ensure the bench adheres to its newly stated standard.
The resolution was praised by prominent legal figures, including retired Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge LaDoris Hazard Cordell. Cordell, who became the first Black female judge in Northern California upon her 1982 appointment by Governor Brown, described the slur as a profound human rights concern rather than a routine linguistic dispute.
Cordell referenced the literary figure Humpty Dumpty from "Alice in Wonderland," who claimed words meant whatever he chose them to mean. She stressed that courtroom actors cannot redefine the inherent nature of a derogatory racial slur, noting that its damaging meaning remains unmistakable.
Jeremy Fogel, a former state and federal judge who directs the Judicial Institute at UC Berkeley Law School, similarly endorsed the outcome, characterizing the court's intervention and Dorfman's agreement as a sound resolution to the ongoing dispute.
Dorfman did not respond to requests for comment regarding his historical practices or his recent commitment to adopt alternative language in future cases.
(0)