Another Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge has come under scrutiny for alleged unprofessional conduct.
The Commission on Judicial Performance has instituted formal proceedings to inquire into matters concerning Judge Michael J. Carrozzo, who has been a sitting Judge since June 2014.
The allegations stem from Carrozzo supposedly working as an attorney for his judicial secretary, who would later become his wife.
This is the second Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge to receive formal disciplinary action from the commission this month. Judge Thomas R. Adams is facing public admonishment for raising his voice and throwing papers at the a defendant’s counsel during court proceedings.
The Commission’s report stated Judge Carrozzo presented himself as an attorney for Sara Eklund, his judicial secretary, on several occasions between 2018 and 2020.
Apparently Judge Carrozzo negotiated with Eklund’s car insurance company relating to a traffic accident, threatened to sue a mattress company for nondelivery, assisted with a letter to Eklund’s landlord during a dispute with a rental deposit, and assisted with a document during her divorce proceedings.
Judge Carrozzo also went as far to create a false letterhead representing himself as an attorney and listing his business address as a P.O. box at a local UPS store. The California State Bar does not allow judges to practice law as an attorney.
“By identifying yourself as an ‘attorney at law,’ advising that you represented Ms. Eklund, directing the recipient not to communicate with Ms. Eklund, and threatening future litigation, you misrepresented material facts and intentionally conveyed the false representation that you were entitled to practice law at that time,” the commission wrote.
Carrozzo and Eklund are also accused of using the court’s office equipment to socialize, plan vacations, secure daycare for their child, and speak poorly about other court employees and judges.
“With respect to Ms. Eklund, your conduct in 2018, 2019, and 2020, reflected favoritism or created an appearance thereof,” the notice stated. “You did not avoid favoritism, or the appearance of favoritism, by initiating a reassignment, relocation, or transfer of yourself or Ms. Eklund. You also failed to take sufficient steps to minimize potential issues with supervision, court morale, and conflict(s) of interest.”
Judge Carrozzo is charged with willful misconduct in office, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, and improper action, within the meaning of article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution, which provides for the removal, censure, public admonishment, or private admonishment of a judge or former judge.
His answer to the notice is due January 2, 2025. Upon filing, the judge’s answer will be made available for public inspection. A hearing will be conducted where all parties will have an opportunity to introduce evidence and examine and cross-examine witnesses.
Judge Carrozzo is represented by Attorney Heather L. Rosing of San Diego.
Rosing released a statement this week stating the commission’s allegations do “not involve substantive decisions in his cases, his demeanor in the courtroom, or his work ethic. Rather, the focus is on off-bench activity relating to a relationship with a court colleague who is now his wife and mother of their two children.”
“Judge Carrozzo has been fully cooperating with the commission and respects both the commission’s work and its role,” Rosing stated.
Following completion of the hearing, the special masters will provide the commission with a report containing findings with respect to the charges. The parties will have an opportunity to present their views on the report to the commission through briefing and argument.
If the commission determines that the charges are proven by clear and convincing evidence, it is empowered to remove, censure, publicly admonish, or privately discipline the judge. Charges that the commission determines are not proven will be dismissed.
A determination by the commission to remove, censure, or admonish a judge is subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court upon petition by the judge.
Related Articles
https://www.edhat.com/news/santa-barbara-county-judge-faces-public-admonishment-for-courtroom-misconduct/
Also Read
- District Attorney Finds Fatal Goleta Grocery Store Shooting by Deputies Was Justified
- Santa Barbara Man Arrested for Vehicle Theft, Attempted Carjacking, and Residential Burglary
- Lompoc Man Sentenced to Life Without Parole for Burning Father to Death
- Santa Maria Police Arrest Juvenile in June 4 Shooting Investigation
- Charges Filed Against Three Suspects in Connection with Bohnett Park Homicide
Judges have been held in way too high regard historically. Their terms are also ridiculous and should be capped at 4 years. This person and any other judge that can be proven to have overstepped the law should immediately be removed from office with stripped benefits. The overinflated ego, sense of superiority on some of these judges is a disgrace.
Some judges have bad judgment, it seems.
PS I won my case so this post is about lack of professionalism
Why would any attorney allow a client to go before Judge Carrozzo as a defendant?
What do you want to bet he gets off with a slap on the wrist and continues his unprofessional conduct?
Now do the elderly judges who thumb through case paperwork instead of reading each page.
He used his court-issues computer to socialize and plan a vacation.