A veteran San Francisco Superior Court judge who spent years defending his practice of speaking a notorious racial slur aloud during legal proceedings has agreed to discontinue the habit, court administrators announced this week. The decision marks a significant reversal for Judge Harry M. Dorfman, who had long insisted that fully articulating the term was essential for maintaining an uncompromised trial record and evaluating the intent of witnesses and defendants.
The policy shift was confirmed by court leadership just days after a published report brought widespread public attention to Dorfman's unique courtroom conduct. Following the scrutiny, the San Francisco Superior Court released an official statement declaring that the bench recognizes the deep historical pain attached to the slur and will avoid its explicit use in future sessions.
In its public remarks, the court stated that it understands the historical gravity of the term and the harm it produces across all settings and contexts. While noting the critical necessity of creating an accurate evidentiary record, the court emphasized the parallel obligation of jurists to apply reasonable discretion, even in scenarios where no statutory or ethical codes have been formally breached.
The administration confirmed that court personnel and judges are dedicated to adopting alternative terms whenever the word appears in the course of judicial proceedings. The statement affirmed that Judge Dorfman has formally committed to following this revised approach in all forthcoming hearings and trials.
Dorfman, a 69-year-old jurist, previously worked as a law professor and spent years serving as a deputy district attorney within San Francisco. He was appointed to the Superior Court bench in 2013 by then-Governor Jerry Brown. Unlike his colleagues on the local and regional bench, Dorfman consistently maintained that verbatim recitation of inflammatory language was a required component of judicial transparency.
While most presiding judges instruct attorneys and witnesses to substitute the slur with euphemistic phrases like "the n-word," Dorfman had actively required the opposite since at least 2020. In multiple cases, he argued from the bench that altering a speaker’s words diluted the reality of the testimony and obscured the underlying motivations of those involved in criminal incidents.
The judge's practice was underscored during a hearing held last November involving a criminal defendant receiving mental health treatment who was accused of issuing verbal threats against law enforcement and others. When the deputy public defender representing the defendant attempted to quote the threatening statements while omitting the full racial epithet, Dorfman intervened directly.
According to transcripts of the proceeding, Dorfman corrected the defense counsel by reciting the threat with the complete racial slur included. When the attorney, Deputy Public Defender Elly Leggatt, asked the judge to refrain from uttering the term and argued that its verbal use was inappropriate for the courtroom, Dorfman rejected the objection.
Dorfman maintained that because the word constituted raw evidence in the proceeding, articulating it did not convey personal offense or insult toward anyone present. Contending that the bench must confront the unvarnished facts of the case, the judge subsequently ordered the defendant to remain in custody without bail.
In another legal proceeding, when a defense lawyer noted that an individual had used the euphemism to describe a witness's statement, Dorfman instructed the attorney to utter the actual slur when posing questions. The judge justified the directive by asserting that the judicial system must confront information as it exists in everyday life rather than sanitizing the record.
The controversial methodology prompted formal pushback in 2022 when San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju submitted a detailed disciplinary complaint to the California Commission on Judicial Performance. Raju urged the oversight body to issue a public admonition or censure against Dorfman and mandate specialized training regarding racial sensitivity and courtroom decorum.
The state disciplinary agency concluded its review in 2024 by releasing a single-sentence order dismissing the matter, stating without elaboration that it found no formal basis to sanction the judge. Subsequent requests submitted by the Public Defender's Office asking local court leaders to intervene were similarly turned down without public explanation.
The longstanding resistance to administrative intervention ended on Monday when court leadership, under the guidance of Presiding Judge Rochelle East, issued the new guidance. In response to the development, the Public Defender's Office expressed relief but voiced frustration that meaningful administrative action occurred only after investigative reporting highlighted the judge's conduct.
Public defender officials stated that their entire staff had been deeply troubled by Dorfman's persistent and gratuitous recitation of the epithet despite the existence of standard courtroom alternatives. The office added that it intends to closely monitor future proceedings to ensure that the court upholds its pledge.
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 appointed in Northern California when Governor Brown elevated her to the bench in 1982, remarked that the slur is not a standard profanity and that its use touches fundamental human rights rather than isolated community concerns.
Drawing a comparison to Lewis Carroll's *Alice in Wonderland*, Cordell rejected the idea that any individual jurist possesses the authority to redefine the meaning of a recognized racial slur or strip away its intrinsic hostility. Additionally, former state and federal judge Jeremy Fogel, who currently directs the Judicial Institute at UC Berkeley Law School, characterized the court's updated standard as a constructive and appropriate resolution to the controversy.
(0)