A San Francisco Superior Court judge who spent years insisting on articulating a notorious racial slur during criminal hearings has agreed to abandon the practice following intense public scrutiny. San Francisco Superior Court officials confirmed that Judge Harry M. Dorfman will no longer speak the full N-word aloud from the bench or require attorneys appearing before him to do so when quoting evidence.
The decision comes after court administration released a formal statement acknowledging the deep trauma associated with the term. In its communication, the court emphasized that while creating an accurate verbatim record remains a fundamental judicial duty, jurists must balance precision with sound discretion, especially when handling language that carries enduring historical harm.
"The San Francisco Superior Court recognizes the historical significance of the n-word and the harm it carries in any context or circumstance," the court announced. "While an accurate record is essential, it is equally important to exercise reasonable discretion, even where no ethical or statutory violation has been found. The Court is committed to using alternative language when this word arises in court proceedings. Judge Harry M. Dorfman has agreed to proceed in this manner in the future."
The sudden change in policy arrived just three days after a report by the San Francisco Chronicle brought Dorfman’s long-standing courtroom conduct to light. For years, the jurist had stood apart from his colleagues by openly pronouncing the racial epithet on the record rather than substituting accepted euphemisms, a stance that sparked repeated objections from local public defenders and civil rights advocates.
Dorfman, a 69-year-old white judge, previously worked as a law professor and served as a deputy district attorney in San Francisco before being appointed to the bench in 2013 by then-Governor Jerry Brown. Court records show that since at least 2020, he consistently defended his decision to utter the slur when reviewing testimony or reading transcripts, arguing that direct recitation was essential to capture the true intent and emotional state of speakers in criminal matters.
While judges across California routinely permit attorneys and witnesses to refer to the phrase as the "N-word" to avoid gratuitous offense, Dorfman regularly intervened when lawyers attempted to sanitize their quotations. He maintained that repeating the actual words uttered by defendants or witnesses was necessary to reflect real-world evidence without sanitizing the factual record.
One such confrontation occurred during a hearing last November involving a criminal defendant receiving mental health treatment who was accused of issuing verbal threats against law enforcement personnel. When the defense counsel attempted to summarize the client's statements without uttering the explicit slur, Dorfman interrupted the proceedings to quote the threats verbatim, speaking the full epithet aloud from the bench.
The incident prompted an immediate objection from Deputy Public Defender Elly Leggatt, who formally asked the judge to refrain from using the slur during the hearing, stating that such language was inappropriate for the courtroom. Dorfman rejected the objection, asserting that reciting verbatim evidence did not constitute an insult and subsequently ordered Leggatt’s client held in custody without bail.
In another proceeding, when a defense attorney noted that a witness had used the epithet, Dorfman instructed the lawyer to say the actual word aloud while questioning the witness. The judge insisted at the time that the legal system must confront information as it exists in reality rather than softening harsh language.
The judge's persistent conduct had previously triggered formal legal challenges. In 2022, San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju submitted a disciplinary complaint to the California Commission on Judicial Performance, requesting that the oversight agency issue a public censure or admonishment and mandate corrective training for Dorfman.
However, the state regulatory body concluded its review in 2024 by issuing a brief, one-sentence order that dismissed the matter without taking disciplinary action or providing an explanation. Subsequent appeals from the Public Defender’s Office urging the leadership of the San Francisco Superior Court to step in were initially rebuffed without public clarification.
The court's recent reversal under Presiding Judge Rochelle East drew a sharp response from Raju, whose office welcomed the policy change while criticizing the institutional delay that preceded it. Raju noted that it was deeply concerning that public exposure was required before court leadership addressed the issue, adding that public defenders would remain vigilant to ensure the bench adheres to its new commitment.
The agreement was also praised by prominent legal figures, including retired Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge LaDoris Hazard Cordell. Cordell, who made history in 1982 when Governor Brown appointed her as the first Black female judge in Northern California, emphasized that the slur's presence in a legal setting represents a fundamental human rights concern rather than a narrow administrative dispute.
Drawing a literary comparison to Lewis Carroll's *Alice in Wonderland*, Cordell rejected the notion that any individual judge could strip the epithet of its toxic meaning under the guise of evidentiary precision. She noted that unlike Humpty Dumpty, who claimed words meant whatever he chose them to mean, jurists cannot redefine a term whose harmful legacy is universally understood.
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 announcement as a constructive resolution to the controversy. Dorfman did not respond to requests for comment regarding the newly established policy.
(0)