The sheriff’s office concedes “there is a basis for contempt” over the sale records; her deputy undersheriff won’t agree to an outside audit

Common Pleas Court Judge Paula Patrick held a hearing October 29, 2026, on whether the sheriff’s office should be held in contempt for failing to comply with her orders to produce sheriff-sale records, The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Ryan W. Briggs and William Bender reported. Bilal was not required to attend and did not appear. Jonathan Rardin, the attorney the city hired to represent her, acknowledged in court that the office might never be able to locate all the records Patrick had ordered, including a detailed accounting of every property auction since Bilal took office in January 2020.

Rardin conceded “there is a basis for contempt” based on the office’s response to the court orders, but proposed that the city controller conduct a performance audit instead of the outside forensic audit Patrick had raised, saying Council could then act on the findings. The Inquirer noted that a 2022 controller audit, under then-Controller Rebecca Rhynhart, found accounting problems in the office that continued from Bilal’s predecessor into her own tenure, and that Council took no action on it. Steven Wakefield, the office’s senior deputy undersheriff, interrupted Rardin to tell the court, “We are not here to agree to an independent audit.” Rardin told Patrick, “I don’t have a witness who can sit on the stand and tell you where every dollar went.”

Patrick did not rule at the hearing. “This is a determination based on what I received or did not receive,” she said. “They didn’t produce the documents.” The office’s improvements, she said, had come only as a result of her orders and information that surfaced at later hearings: “My point is that nothing had been done up to this point.” Absent continuing oversight, she asked, “how else will the courts know what’s happening?” She said she would rule on the matter shortly. Daniel Bernheim, the lawyer for JSB Property Group, the company whose lawsuit prompted the proceedings, asked in court: “Is this just the tip of the iceberg?”