A veteran San Francisco Superior Court judge who spent years insisting on articulating the full "n-word" during criminal proceedings has agreed to abandon the practice. The change in policy comes just days after public reporting brought widespread attention to the jurist’s conduct, prompting court administration to intervene and establish clear expectations regarding courtroom language.
Court administration announced the agreement on Monday, confirming that Judge Harry M. Dorfman will no longer require or use the explicit racial epithet from the bench. The announcement marks a significant shift for the court, which had previously declined to take formal action despite past administrative complaints lodged by local defense attorneys.
In a formal statement released by the San Francisco Superior Court, judicial leaders acknowledged the severe pain associated with the slur. The leadership underscored that the historical weight and harm carried by the term persist across every context and circumstance, making its verbal recitation inappropriate during official proceedings.
The court further explained that while maintaining a precise and faithful record of testimony is critical to the justice system, judges must also exercise sound discretion. Court leadership, headed by Presiding Judge Rochelle East, affirmed that substitute phrasing must be employed whenever the term emerges in testimony or evidence, confirming that Dorfman has committed to adopting this approach moving forward.
Dorfman, a 69-year-old white jurist, previously served as a law professor and a San Francisco deputy district attorney before being named to the bench by former Governor Jerry Brown in 2013. For years, he broke with established judicial norms by maintaining that reciting the unabbreviated slur was necessary to preserve an accurate factual record and to properly convey the intent and demeanor of speakers in criminal matters.
While standard courtroom practice across California typically involves jurists and attorneys substituting euphemisms such as the "n-word" when referencing offensive testimony, records indicate that Dorfman consistently mandated the use of the actual word since at least 2020. This habit led to multiple tense exchanges with attorneys who expressed discomfort with uttering or hearing the slur during hearings.
In one notable exchange during a proceeding last November, a defense attorney represented a client in mental health treatment who had allegedly made verbal threats against law enforcement officers. When Deputy Public Defender Elly Leggatt attempted to quote the allegations while prudently omitting the racial slur, Dorfman intervened directly from the bench, reciting the exact vulgarity and racial term from the case transcript.
When Leggatt objected on the record and requested that the judge refrain from speaking the slur because of its offensive nature, Dorfman dismissed the concern. He maintained that repeating the language was merely presenting the factual evidence of the case rather than insulting anyone in attendance, subsequently ordering the defendant to be detained without bail.
On another occasion, when an attorney noted that a witness had used the epithet, Dorfman instructed counsel to say the specific slur directly during cross-examination. The judge asserted that the justice system must confront facts as they exist in real life, rejecting efforts by lawyers to soften the testimony through standard euphemistic phrasing.
The repeated use of the slur led San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju to pursue formal disciplinary remedies in 2022. Raju submitted an official complaint to the California Commission on Judicial Performance, requesting corrective measures that included mandatory educational training along with an official admonishment or public censure of the judge.
That disciplinary avenue concluded in 2024 when the state oversight commission issued a brief, one-sentence order dismissing the matter after finding no basis to pursue disciplinary sanctions against Dorfman. Raju’s office subsequently sought intervention directly from San Francisco Superior Court leadership, but local officials initially declined to take administrative action or provide an explanation for their refusal.
Following Monday’s policy announcement, Raju’s office expressed relief over the resolution while criticizing the administrative delay. The public defender’s office remarked that it was regrettable that external public scrutiny was necessary to force meaningful action, adding that their staff had long been troubled by the gratuitous recitation of the slur when suitable alternatives were readily available, and promised to monitor future proceedings.
The policy shift was also welcomed by prominent legal figures, including retired Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge LaDoris Hazard Cordell. Cordell, who was appointed by Governor Brown in 1982 as the first Black female judge in Northern California before retiring in 2001, emphasized that the slur cannot be treated as an ordinary offensive term, framing its elimination from the courtroom as a matter of basic human rights.
Cordell referenced the literary figure Humpty Dumpty from "Alice in Wonderland" to reject the notion that individuals can arbitrarily redefine harmful language. She noted that no jurist possesses the authority to rewrite the clear and inherently racist meaning of the epithet to justify its spoken presence in a court of law.
Jeremy Fogel, a former state and federal judge who currently serves as the executive director of the Judicial Institute at UC Berkeley Law School, similarly characterized the court's updated standard and the judge's compliance as a positive and constructive resolution to the dispute. Dorfman did not provide comment regarding the announcement or his agreement to cease using the word.
(0)