Sheriff's lawyer concedes 'a basis for contempt' but says the office won't accept a forensic audit

The lawyer representing Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal's office told a judge Thursday that there is "a basis for contempt" over how the office has handled court orders on sheriff sales, but said the office would still fight a court-ordered forensic audit, the Inquirer reported. Common Pleas Judge Paula Patrick said she would rule "shortly."

Sheriff sales are the auctions of tax-delinquent and foreclosed properties. When they go wrong, buyers wait for deeds, former owners wait for leftover money, and the city waits for taxes and water bills paid from the proceeds. Our Oct. 29 story laid out how the case got here.

What was said in court

According to the Inquirer's account of the Oct. 29 hearing:

• The office's lawyer, Jonathan Rardin, who was hired by the city, said the office may never find every record the judge asked for, and that he did not have a witness who could tell the court "where every dollar went." He described the office's recordkeeping as "manual and disconnected."
• His alternative: Rardin proposed a performance audit by the City Controller, followed by action from City Council, and offered voluntary progress updates to the court. Patrick rejected the updates, saying the office had improved only when ordered to.
• The office's position on an audit: Senior Deputy Undersheriff Steven Wakefield told the court, "We are not here to agree to an independent audit."
• The property buyer that sued, JSB Property Group, argued through its lawyer that the office's September disclosure of about $20 million in sale proceeds that had not been paid out shows the need for a monitor.
• The judge said she is deciding only whether the office complied with her orders. "They didn't produce the documents," she said.

Bilal did not attend and was not required to. She is not charged with a crime; the proceeding is civil. The Inquirer reported that the office backed out of an August agreement to accept six months of court-appointed supervision of the auctions.

What our records add

Rardin's suggestion puts the question back with City Council and the Controller. Here is what Council has on file:

• A hearing approved and never held. Resolution 250927, from Council President Kenyatta Johnson with 10 co-sponsors, authorized a Public Safety Committee hearing on how the courts, the District Attorney, the police and the Sheriff's Office protect victims of abuse and domestic violence. It was adopted Oct. 23, 2025. Our records show no hearing in the 374 days since.
• The same hearing, authorized again. On Oct. 29, Council adopted Resolution 260937, with the same title and purpose, from Johnson and nine co-sponsors: Anthony Phillips, Jim Harrity, Kendra Brooks, Mark Squilla, Mike Driscoll, Nicolas O'Rourke, Nina Ahmad, Quetcy Lozada and Rue Landau. It has no hearing date on our meetings calendar. That hearing is about protecting victims, not about auctions, but it is the only pending Council business in our records that names the Sheriff's Office.
• No bill on the office's structure. As we reported Oct. 29, the legislation we track shows no bill or Charter amendment this term to restructure or abolish the office.
• Earlier audits. A 2022 performance audit by then-Controller Rebecca Rhynhart found inadequate accounting and missing documentation, and the Inquirer reported that Council took no action on it.
• The budget. The office is funded in the fiscal 2027 operating budget, Bill 260199, which passed 17-0 on June 11.

What's next

• The ruling. Patrick could find the office in contempt. She has said one possible remedy is making the office pay for a forensic audit of its auctions, the Inquirer reported.
• Council. Council meets Nov. 12 and Nov. 19. Neither the Public Safety hearing nor any sheriff-related bill is scheduled yet. The next routine public questioning of the office's finances would come at spring budget hearings.