There are limits to what you can and cannot do as city attorney in San Francisco. According to the city charter, Herrera may not "publicly endorse or urge the endorsement of or otherwise
participate in a campaign for a candidate for City elective office, other than himself or herself..."
By penning an op-ed slamming Alioto-Pier just months before her contested election, was Herrera in the wrong? The executive director of San Francisco's Ethics Commission, John St. Croix, weighed the matter at SF Weekly's behest. Here's his answer:
The Chronicle piece does not urge an endorsement (or an opposition) to any candidate, including Alioto-Pier. He is not expressing opposition to her election to the board; he is expressing opposition to the court ruling that allows her to seek another term. The courts have been fairly clear that the presence of certain words (ie "vote for" or "vote against") are required to consider the language an endorsement. Herrera is criticizing a process, not a candidate and therefore does not cross the line.