[X] Ryan Dibble

Thursday, February 26, 2026

Page 8

Ryan Dibble

Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 181

our years ago, then-Deputy District Attorney Ryan Dibble ran for the Los Angeles Superior Court in a three-person race. Quoting words of high praise from judges, in response to our inquiries, and from his annual office performance evaluations—one of which describes him as “dedicated, easygoing, hardworking and conscientious” and someone who “gets along well with everyone he encounters”—we endorsed him, commenting that he “has what it takes to serve as a judge.”

Dibble’s credentials are all the more impressive now. He has bench experience, having been elected last July by Los Angeles Superior Court judges as a court commissioner.

One judge says, in connection with Dibble’s current election bid:

“WE ARE ALL ROOTING FOR COMMISSIONER RYAN DIBBLE TO BECOME A JUDGE! I endorsed him before and I will do it again. He appeared before me for years, did trials, [preliminary hearings], motions. He is one of the most competent DDAs I have seen in a long time. Now he is a Commissioner, and it would be amazing if he became a judge!”

Dibble is a lecturer in law at USC, where he earned his law degree. Before becoming a commissioner, he was a volunteer temporary judge.

From what we have gleaned, there is no question as to his intellectual capacity and his integrity.

Clearly, Dibble is highly qualified for a judgeship. Without reservation, we again endorse him.

is opponent, by contrast, is not fit for the open seat for which they are vying. She is Administrative Law Judge Thanayi Lindsey. The fact that she received a public reproval from the State Bar in 2011 surely does not, by itself, point to unworthiness to serve as a Superior Court judge currently. However, her refusal to discuss what the State Bar described 15 years ago as “Emotional/Physical Difficulties” and provide an explanation as to what those difficulties were and how they have been overcome does point to a lack of a sense of accountability.

She has entered a race for a public office. That is an invitation for scrutiny by the electorate. Yet, she will not open up and address a matter relating to her fitness.

Here’s what the State Bar said in In the Matter of: Thanayi Lindsey when it issued a public reproval on Feb. 10, 2011:

“At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities. Respondent sought appropriate treatment and continues with her participation in the Lawyers Assistance Program to ensure against any recurrence of such difficulties.”

The misconduct related to accepting money to provide services in family law matters, not providing those services, then failing to respond to inquiries by her clients and, eventually to those by a State Bar investigator.

These matters will not disappear by virtue of Lindsey ignoring inquiries that are occasioned by her candidacy. If she supposes to the contrary, she is divorced from reality.

here is also the issue of Lindsey’s campaign shenanigans. She’s administrative law judge. “Judge” is part of her title but, standing alone, use of that title is deceptive, creating as it does the impression that she presides over trials in a courtroom—that is, that she’s a member of the judiciary.

Yet, her campaign website exhorts:

“Elect Judge Thanayi Lindsey for Superior Court,”

But she’s not “Judge Thanayi Lindsey” and we hope she never become such.

Even the address of the website is deceitful:

“https://www.electjudgelindseyforlasuperiorcourt.org/.”

Her chosen ballot designation is “Judge of Administrative California Hearings-Special Education Division.” In her quest to lead off with the word “Judge” she has concocted a nonexistent job title which the Office of Registrar-Recorder was derelict in tentatively allowing.

Elections Code §13107 requires that a ballot designation of a lawyer who works for the state be “the actual job title, as defined by statute, charter, or other governing instrument” and specifies that where “the candidate performs quasi-judicial functions for a governmental agency, the full name of the agency shall be included.”

A proper designation would be “Administrative Law Judge, State of California, Office of Administrative Hearings.”

There are two candidates in the race for Office No. 181: one who is capable and trustworthy, the other having a history of emotional/physical difficulties who will not affirm that she has recovered and is displaying untruthfulness in campaigning.

The decision for voters should be an easy one.