Wednesday, February 25, 2026
Page 8
Perspectives
Can an ALJ Ethically Use the Title ‘Judge’ in Campaign Advertising?
By Roger M. Grace
A potential candidate for a Los Angeles Superior Court open seat is referred to on his campaign website as “Judge Dammeier.” Yet, he does not hold an office in the state’s judicial branch—that is, under Art. VI of the California Constitution.
We’re talking about an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) with the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board who has filed a declaration of intent to run for five judicial offices, identifying himself in connection with two of them as “Carlos Dammeier” and with respect to three under his full name, “Dieter Carlos Dammeier.”
He had not taken out nominating papers for any of the offices as of mid-afternoon yesterday, but said Monday night, “Looks like 131 for me.” Deputy Alternate Public Defender David Ross and Deputy Public Defender Donna Tryfman have filed nominating papers for that office and Administrative Law Judge Troy Slaten, who has twice run unsuccessfully for the Superior Court, has taken out but not filed, that document.
Dammeier’s website does specify where the potential candidate works and what kinds of cases he handles, but the question nonetheless arises whether it is misleading for an ALJ to be identified in campaign materials, including those appearing online, with his or her name preceded by the word, “Judge” rather than “Administrative Law Judge.”
Use of the word “Judge” strikes me as creating the false impression that Dammeier is a member of the judiciary—apparently the incumbent—not someone who acts in a quasi-judicial role.
★
I posed to a few persons whose opinions I value the question of whether an ALJ’s use of the title “Judge” is misleading.
“Misleading,” a retired member of the Court of Appeal responds. “Easy call.”
The same call is made by former Los Angeles County Counsel Lloyd W. Pellman, who says that “this is my personal opinion based on my past experience regarding election matters,” not an expression on behalf of his firm. He declares that use of the title “Judge” is “deceptive” and that “Administrative Law Judge” would have to be used “to be accurate.”
He notes that “many, if not most, people voting have no true concept of the differences in ‘judges,’ ” adding that an ALJ calling himself “Judge” would be similar to “a male parent” describing “himself as ‘Father X’ in the hopes of winning favor with a religious group.”
★
A judicial officer opines: “I don’t think it is ‘misleading,” but remarks that Dammeier “does not appear to be very honorable.”
A former U.S. District Court judge comments:
“In my view, for an ALJ to represent himself for election purposes as ‘Judge’ is misleading, because most lay persons associate the title of judge with federal (Article III) or state court judges, i.e., judicial officers who preside over civil and criminal actions.”
Another former judge of that court offers this view:
“In my opinion, the simple use of the term ‘judge’ without any explanation of the AL’s limitations placed on the office is misleading, i.e. ‘District Court Judge’; ‘Magistrate Judge’; ‘Superior Court Judge’; ‘Administrative Court Judge’; ‘Beauty Contest Judge’; ‘Olympic Judge’; etc.”
An attorney who chaired a committee that evaluates judicial candidates says:
“This debate smacks of nothing more than shoddy manipulation, not honesty or transparency. An Administrative Law Judge is NOT the same as an actual Superior Court Judge, there is a big difference.”
A former high-level prosecutor offers the opinion that “ALJs are not judges for electoral purposes.”
A retired member of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sees it differently, saying:
“Lawyers would mostly know that ALJs are executive branch officials, not part of the judiciary. But I doubt the general public would know the difference, and might even think that having ‘Administrative Law’ as part of the title adds to the cachet.”
An erstwhile administrative law judge provides this analysis:
“The average person probably doesn’t know the difference between a judge and an administrative law judge, so either title might be misleading without more information. Specifying the agency where the administrative law judge is employed would be more informative than just the words ‘administrative law.’ For example, ‘CUIAB Judge’ or ‘WCAB Judge’ would tell a voter more than just the unfamiliar title ‘administrative law judge.’ ”
★
Dammeier says, in response to an inquiry:
“Most people at the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (staff and litigants) call us Judge for short but Administrative Law Judge is also used, given that is our official title.”
Pressed as to whether reference to himself as “Judge” on his website could cause an “incorrect perception,” he says:
“The website starts with ‘Judge Dammeier is a respected Administrative Law Judge for the State of California.’
“Not sure how that is misleading?”
The website goes on to say:
“As a Judge, Dammeier has heard and issued decisions in over 1,000 State unemployment, disability or tax appeals before him….On a community service level, Judge Dammeier is also very active”….Judge Dammeier, a California native, born to immigrant parents and growing up in a single mother household, has provided him the tools to work hard, be empathetic and treat all with respect and compassion.”
(So far as his ballot designation is concerned, it was established by the Court of Appeal for this district in its 1995 opinion in Andrews v. Valdez that an administrative law judge may use the ballot designation of “Administrative Law Judge” (contrary to the implication of an earlier decision) and, under amendments to Election Code Sec. 13107 effective in 2018, must use that title. Subd. (b)(1)(A) requires “[w]ords designating the…state…office held by the candidate at the time of filing the nomination documents” and §13107 (b) (3)(D) provides that “[i]f the candidate performs quasi-judicial functions for a governmental agency, the full name of the agency shall be included.”)
★
A Superior Court judge scoffs that “Carlos, ‘Oops, I forgot my first name’ Dammeier” is apt to “implode” in running for one of the seats “where he has squandered filing fees,” continuing:
“His ill-conceived strategy of trying to run as ‘Carlos,’ will likely offend all who consider endorsing or supporting his candidacy, and if indeed he plans on spending $1M on his campaign, there’s no shortage of consultants to assist him in disposing of those funds—who says slate mail and billboards are dead?”
The $1 million figure was mentioned in an advisory emailed to the MetNews at 7:45 p.m. on Feb. 5 announcing:
“Dieter Carlos Dammeier filing declaration of intent (8:00 AM Feb 6, 2026) for open judicial seats 141 and 14. [¶] Dammeier brings 28 years of litigation and judicial experience and plans on making a strong run, putting aside $1,000,000 in campaign funding to be able to get his message out across the County….”
Why did he mention the time he would be filing? Did he envision a reporter and a photographer showing up to cover the momentous event of his filing a declaration? (And did he have a notion that this would occur pursuant to after-hours notice the night before?)
What is incredible is that he would think that his reference to plunking $1 million into his campaign coffers world be seriously regarded.
This is a variation on an oft-used trick to try to scare others into not entering a race. The way it usually works is that a candidate will lend the campaign a large sum with no intent to actually spend all the money.
The fact is that Dammeier has not loaned his campaign $1 million and, at present, could not do so lawfully; he has not formed a finance committee registered with the state Office of Secretary of State.
★
Dammeier filed a declaration of an intent to seek a Los Angeles Superior Court open seat in the March 5, 2024, primary election. He advised this newspaper on Nov. 21, 2023:
“I decided not to proceed with my run for office 130. Going to stay out of the circus this time around.”
He said he might run “in a couple years.”
Dammeier did run for a judgeship in 2024—actually, judgeships, in the plural— seeking one seat in San Bernardino County and another seat in Merced County (where his son hoped to go to school).
How could he run in two counties? The bottom line is that it was permitted (through folly), and he lost both races.
In San Bernardino, he pulled only 22.8% of the vote in a two-person race; in Merced, he bagged 20.32%, coming in second in a three-person contest.
In 2016, Dammeier had come in fourth in a four-person race for the San Bernardino Superior Court, attracting 15.02% of the ballots.
★
Elections Code §8003(a)(1) now provides, under a bill signed into law on Sept. 22, 2024:
“A person shall not file nomination papers for more than one office at the same primary election.”
The bill is kicked off by a finding that “[s]ince 1913, state law has prohibited a person from filing nomination papers for more than one office at the same primary election,” but notes:
“[I]n December 2023, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge ordered the Secretary of State to place the name of a candidate on the ballot for a seat in the United States House of Representatives even though that same person was also appearing on the ballot as a candidate for a seat in the California State Assembly.”
If Dammeier had been elected to a judgeship in two counties and had to chose where to sit, what would have been the consequence with respect to the office he did not accept? The bill sets forth:
“If a candidate is elected to multiple offices at a primary election but can serve in only one, the result is a vacant elective office. Such a vacancy will leave voters without representation until a new official can be seated, and often necessitates a special election that can be costly and suffer from low and unrepresentative turnout.”
★
A March 3, 2024, opinion piece in the San Bernardino Sun by investigative reporter Joe Nelson says:
Dammeier was once a partner at the Upland-based firm Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir, which represented police officers and police unions.
The firm began dissolving in 2013 amid allegations of fraudulent billing practices. It lost one of its largest clients, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, and its 99,000 members after a forensic audit uncovered triple-billing, bogus travel expenses and “serious acts of misconduct.”
In 2018, the defunct law firm paid $607,500 to settle a lawsuit alleging it had hired a private investigator to illegally plant a GPS device on a car belonging to the mayor of Costa Mesa.
Dammeier’s firm also was accused of having an investigator falsely report to police that a Costa Mesa councilmember was driving drunk. The DUI incident triggered investigations by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office as well as the FBI.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company