At contempt hearing, Philly Sheriff Rochelle Bilal’s lawyer said she won’t allow forensic audit of property auctions

Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal’s lawyer conceded on Thursday that a city judge may have grounds to hold the office in contempt, but said Bilal would still fight any attempt to appoint a forensic auditor to examine how the proceeds of property auctions were distributed on her watch.

The contempt hearing — which followed last month’s disclosure that Bilal’s staff had recently discovered about $20 million in undisbursed sheriff-sale proceeds — was an extraordinary turning point after more than two years of questions surrounding the office’s mishandling of the sales.

In May, Common Pleas Judge Paula Patrick ordered Bilal to turn over all sales records and explain in court why she should not appoint a “special master” or some other expert to fix major delays in processing deeds and distributing funds.

After it emerged that Bilal’s staff had failed to produce all the requested records, and she reneged on a deal to allow six months of court-appointed supervision of sheriff sales, Patrick called the contempt hearing to force the issue.

Jonathan Rardin, an attorney hired by the city to represent Bilal, acknowledged in court Thursday that the sheriff’s office might never be able to locate all records that Patrick wanted, including a detailed accounting of every property auction since Bilal took office in January 2020.

“I don’t have a witness who can sit on the stand and tell you where every dollar went,” Rardin said.

Daniel Bernheim, a lawyer for a property group whose March lawsuit triggered the hearings, countered that prior revelations in court, like the $20 million of withheld funds, necessitated the appointment of a monitor.

“Is this just the tip of the iceberg?” Bernheim asked.

Rardin argued that the office has made substantial improvements to its sale process. But Bilal’s legal team and her office staff drew the line at Patrick’s proposal to have an outside forensic auditor review the sales.

At one point, Steven Wakefield, Bilal’s newly hired senior deputy undersheriff, interrupted Rardin midsentence to underscore the office’s opposition to such an audit.

“We are not here to agree to an independent audit,” Wakefield said.

While Rardin conceded that “there is a basis for contempt” based on the office’s response to the court orders, he said the city controller could instead conduct its own performance audit of the office. He said City Council could then take action.

In 2022, Rebecca Rhynhart, then the city controller, released the findings of a performance audit that found inadequate accounting procedures, missing documentation and other significant problems under former Sheriff Jewell Williams that continued after Bilal took office in 2020.

The audit also found that both Williams and Bilal had been spending fee revenue inappropriately and “operating outside of the checks and balances established in the Home Rule Charter meant to protect taxpayer funds from mismanagement or misuse.”

Rhynhart’s auditors had to issue subpoenas to Bilal’s staff because they would not provide basic financial reports.

City Council took no action in response to that audit. It has since largely turned a blind eye to subsequent problems in the sheriff’s office.

The type of forensic audit Patrick has proposed could include looking for evidence of missing or misappropriated funds. That would potentially be more in-depth than a city controller-conducted performance audit, which focuses on operational efficiency.

Instead, Rardin offered to have Bilal return and voluntarily update the court on its progress at a later time.

Patrick, who has repeatedly expressed frustration at the monthslong proceedings, was unswayed.

The judge noted that Bilal’s office appeared to make improvements to its real estate operation only as a result of the court orders, and relevant information surfaced at subsequent hearings.

“My point is that nothing had been done up to this point,” Patrick said. Without continuing oversight, she asked, “How else will the courts know what’s happening?”

Patrick also said that as a result of the hearings, she had received emails from “countless people” who could not afford court representation but professed to have had their own ongoing issues with the sheriff’s office.

The Inquirer first reported on the deed-delay problem in 2024.

Bilal’s office had initially claimed that tax-delinquent and foreclosed properties were being auctioned off without any major problems. In April, Bilal falsely told City Council that any problems had already been resolved.

Despite Thursday’s back and forth between attorneys, Patrick underscored that she was ruling only on the narrow issue of whether the sheriff’s office had complied with her order or should be held in contempt.

“This is a determination based on what I received or did not receive,” she said. “They didn’t produce the documents.”

Bilal was not required to attend Thursday’s hearing and did not appear in court. Rardin and Bilal’s spokesperson declined to comment on the possibility of her office being held in contempt.

Patrick said she would rule on the matter shortly.

The hearing followed a flurry of last-minute court filings by both sides.

Just before 4 p.m. Wednesday, Rardin filed a motion arguing that the sheriff’s office should not be held in contempt because it is in compliance with a 2003 consent order and state rules requiring the prompt distribution of proceeds and deeds after sheriff sales.

“The evidence on the record is that there is nothing left to coerce, as the sheriff’s office is currently in compliance and has taken steps to institute policies and regulations that will seek to prevent further issues from arising,” Rardin wrote.

Bernheim, the lawyer for JSB Property Group, replied an hour later, just after 5 p.m. Wednesday, saying Rardin’s legal argument lacked any case law.

“The reason for this is the Sheriff’s legal position is incorrect,” Bernheim wrote.

As to the issue of missing records, Rardin wrote in his filing that record keeping under Bilal was, at times, “manual and disconnected,” which made it “virtually impossible” to produce all the required documents.

“That being said, the Sheriff did its best to comply with the records requested,” Rardin wrote.

Rardin has repeatedly sought to keep Bilal off the stand, arguing in an August motion that she shouldn’t have to testify before Judge Patrick because sheriff sales are “outside her unique personal knowledge.” The judge rejected that motion, and Bilal took the stand at a September hearing.

When Bilal was asked at that hearing whether she would allow a compliance examiner to come into the office and confirm that things were now running smoothly, as she claimed, Bilal repeatedly refused to answer the question.

“We are in compliance,” Bilal said. “We got control of this.”

The sheriff’s office in Philadelphia has been targeted by reformers for abolition for decades. Several of Bilal’s predecessors have faced scandals that renewed calls to merge the office’s staff and functions into other city agencies.

Holding the sheriff’s office in contempt would be unusual, but not without precedent.

The Fulton County commissioners were held in civil contempt by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for secretly allowing an outside party to access voting machine data in an effort to aid President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn his 2020 election loss. The order was used to compel the county to reimburse the state for legal costs and fees related to the machines.

In 2024, an elected court clerk in Dauphin County was scheduled to be brought up on more serious criminal contempt charges over chronic mismanagement of her office.

The clerk voluntarily resigned one day before the hearing.

Acknowledgment

The Inquirer’s journalism is supported, in part, by the Lenfest Institute for Journalism and readers like you. News and editorial content are created independently of The Inquirer’s donors. Gifts to support The Inquirer’s high-impact journalism can be made at inquirer.com/donate. A list of Lenfest Institute donors can be found at lenfestinstitute.org/supporters.