A San Francisco Superior Court judge has agreed to end his longstanding practice of vocalizing a pervasive racial slur from the bench and requiring attorneys to repeat it during criminal proceedings. The decision marks a significant reversal for Judge Harry Dorfman, who had defended his verbal use of the term for years as a necessary measure for maintaining an accurate evidentiary record.
The policy shift was announced by court administration just three days after a report by the San Francisco Chronicle highlighted Dorfman's conduct. Leadership at the San Francisco Superior Court, headed by Presiding Judge Rochelle East, released a formal statement indicating that the bench would no longer permit the explicit utterance of the slur during legal sessions.
In its official statement, the court acknowledged the deep historical trauma associated with the slur, noting that the word carries inherent harm regardless of the setting or circumstances in which it is spoken. The administration emphasized that while preserving an exact transcript of trial proceedings is essential, judicial officers must exercise sound discretion in their management of sensitive language.
Court leadership affirmed that judges are now committed to utilizing substitute terminology whenever the racial slur surfaces in testimony, filings, or spoken evidence. According to the court's announcement, Dorfman has consented to abide by these updated expectations and will adopt alternative wording during future hearings.
Dorfman, a 69-year-old white jurist, previously worked as a deputy district attorney in San Francisco and served as a law professor before his appointment to the superior court bench in 2013 by then-Governor Jerry Brown. Throughout his tenure, he developed a distinct reputation for departing from the typical conventions observed by other judges when dealing with offensive language in legal records.
In standard courtroom practice across California and the country, judges and legal practitioners generally use euphemisms, such as referring to the term as the "n-word," to avoid speaking the slur aloud while still identifying the evidence. In contrast, records indicate that Dorfman consistently insisted on speaking and hearing the complete slur on the record since at least 2020, arguing that exact recitations were vital to assessing the motives and demeanor of speakers.
Transcripts from past hearings illustrate how Dorfman enforced this approach. In one proceeding from last November involving a criminal defendant receiving mental health treatment who was accused of making threats against police officers and others, a defense attorney attempted to quote the allegations using redacted phrasing.
According to the official record, Dorfman interrupted the proceedings to correct the attorney, reciting the exact vulgarities and racial slur the defendant allegedly uttered. When Deputy Public Defender Elly Leggatt asked the judge to refrain from using the slur on the grounds that it was inappropriate, Dorfman rejected the objection.
Dorfman asserted that quoting the term verbatim did not constitute an insult because it reflected the factual evidence of the case, telling the defense that the court must present information as it exists in reality. Following the exchange, the judge ordered Leggatt's client to remain in custody without bail.
In another instance, when a defense attorney noted that a witness had used the euphemistic phrase "n-word," Dorfman directed the attorney to state the actual slur when framing questions. The judge maintained that the legal system must confront information directly as it occurs in everyday life rather than relying on softened substitutes.
The judge's persistent use of the term prompted formal opposition from San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, who submitted an ethics complaint to the California Commission on Judicial Performance in 2022. The complaint requested a public censure or admonition, as well as mandatory remedial training for Dorfman.
In 2024, the state judicial watchdog agency concluded the matter by issuing a one-sentence dismissal that found no legal or ethical basis to penalize the judge. Subsequent requests by the Public Defender's office asking the local superior court leadership to intervene internally were initially rejected without any stated justification.
The superior court's sudden reversal on Monday drew a critical response from the Public Defender's office, which argued that administrative action was taken only after public attention focused on the courtroom's internal practices. Raju's office expressed continued dismay over Dorfman's gratuitous use of the slur when standard euphemisms were readily available, adding that public defenders intend to closely monitor courtroom compliance going forward.
The decision to end the practice was welcomed by prominent legal figures, including retired Judge LaDoris Hazard Cordell, who became the first Black female judge in Northern California following her 1982 appointment by Governor Brown. Cordell, who retired from the Santa Clara County Superior Court in 2001 and leads an association of retired jurists that opposed Dorfman's conduct, described the slur as a human rights issue rather than merely a concern for Black individuals.
Cordell rejected the notion that judges could strip the word of its damaging power through legal contextualization, citing the Lewis Carroll character Humpty Dumpty from "Alice in Wonderland" to emphasize that individuals do not have the authority to unilaterally redefine words. She stressed that no jurist possesses the right to change the well-understood, offensive meaning of an explicit racial slur.
Support for the resolution was also voiced by Jeremy Fogel, a former state and federal judge who serves as the head of the Judicial Institute at UC Berkeley School of Law. Fogel characterized the court's updated policy and Dorfman's agreement as a positive conclusion to the ongoing controversy. Dorfman did not respond to requests for comment regarding the policy change.
(0)