What’s in a name? To be more specific, what’s in a former Minnesota judge’s proposed name change? According to a ruling by a Ramsey County judge in October 2025, nothing good.
Let’s see if we can make this easy to understand. Former Judge John P. Dehen, a recently retired judge, was told by a St. Paul judge that he couldn’t change his name from John P. Dehen to Judge John Peter Dehen, as he was no longer a judge and the change would be in bad faith.
Make sense? It might help to know that not-Judge Dehen had also been censured and suspended by the Minnesota Supreme Court in late September 2025, which happened to precede his October 10 retirement. The former Anoka County judge received a nine-month suspension from practicing law due to two violations of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. In denying the petition for the name change, Judge Leonardo Castro said that allowing Dehen’s request would make a ”practical mockery” out of the administration of justice and undermine the public’s trust in the judicial branch.
As you’ve probably guessed, there’s a lot more to this story. It goes beyond an outlandish name change request and focuses on how not to live up to judicial standards.
Leaving the Prudence Out of Jurisprudence
Judge Dehen — sorry, former judge Dehen — became a district court judge in Minnesota’s Tenth Judicial District in 2010. The investigation into his alleged misdeeds while sitting on the bench uncovered an instance in 2022 when Dehen conducted a remote juvenile court calendar from the passenger seat of a car his wife was driving, something he neglected to share with the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards during their inquiry. He was also found to have violated rules with regard to his rulings and conduct in five at-risk guardianship cases, showing prejudice based on the immigration status of those involved.
Dehen was also determined to have ignored a glaring conflict of interest by misusing his judicial authority to benefit one of his staffers. Lisa Shufelt became Dehen’s court reporter in 2017. Minnesota Judicial Branch court reporters are members of a union and have a salary scale with 11 steps that is set by a collective bargaining agreement. Shufelt, who was at step three in 2023, felt she was being underpaid. Dehen agreed.
In August 2023, Shufelt discovered that another step three court reporter with roughly similar skills and experience had purposely resigned in June 2023 before being hired back by the same judge in July 2023 at a step 11 salary. After speaking with the judge who had done the rehiring, Dehen agreed that Shufelt should do the same thing. She resigned on August 28, with Dehen planning on rehiring her as a step 11 employee after the window for applications closed.
Unbeknownst to Dehen and Shufelt, the Judicial Branch had shut that particular loophole on August 9. On receiving Shufelt’s new application, Kristine Lancaster, the HR Director for the Tenth Circuit, informed Dehen that Shufelt could only receive her previous pay step of three unless she had significantly increased her experience. Dehen insisted that he’d told Shufelt she’d be rehired as a step 11, but Lancaster held firm that the Tenth Circuit would only bring her back as a step three. This was affirmed by Sarah Lindahl-Pfieffer, the Tenth Circuit Court Administrator.
That didn’t sit well with Dehen. After informing Lindahl-Phieffer by email on September 18 that he considered himself to have the authority to pay his staff what he felt they deserved, Dehen filed an order on September 20 appointing Shufelt as his court reporter. He followed that up with a writ of mandamus ordering Lindahl-Phieffer to commence paying Shufelt as a step 11 employee.
The Minnesota Office of the Attorney General filed a writ of prohibition on behalf of Lindahl-Phieffer the next day, staying Dehen’s order. Dehen maintained that he had the right to set pay for his staff and that stopping him would undermine his authority. The Minnesota Court of Appeals did not concur, vacating Dehen’s order on October 24. The ruling noted that justices did not have the ability to set salaries, as pay was set through collective bargaining agreements.
Not to be denied, Dehen decided that the Appeals Court’s ruling only meant he couldn’t hire Shufelt at the top step of the scale. In an act that could be interpreted as either overwhelming loyalty to Shufelt or overweening arrogance (or perhaps both), Dehen started the cycle anew on October 31 by issuing an order and an alternative writ of mandamus to Lindahl-Phieffer that demanded she hire Shufelt back at a step six salary. The stay and order to vacate followed quickly, along with Dehen’s refusal to be replaced by an out-of-district conflict judge. He didn’t pursue the case further, but the damage was done.
Has Anyone Spoken With Judge Reinhold About This?
Dehen’s commitment to helping his court reporter increase her pay is admirable, but his methods and tactics overstepped legal and ethical lines. Given that and the other examples of his questionable behavior, Judge Castro felt Dehen’s proposed name change was in bad faith and carried the intent to deceive. He also denied Dehen’s request to seal the name change petition.
It’s not a big deal to refer to the person who managed your kid’s baseball team as “Coach,” even if it’s been a decade or so (especially if you can’t remember their first name — we’ve been there). However, that doesn’t carry the same connotation and potential for malfeasance that a former jurist could get away with while toting a first name of “Judge.” Perhaps Dehen will return to using “Attorney” to precede his name once his suspension is over.
Related Resources
- Why Judges Are Getting Creative With AI-Abusing Attorneys (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- Judge Rules Acting Is Not the Real Thing for Nevada U.S. Attorney (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- It's Probation and Disbarment for Former Vegas Prosecutor Turned "Gorilla Pimp" (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
