Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Michael Carrozzo facing formal proceedings over alleged abuses of his position on behalf of his secretary

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. – The California Commission on Judicial Performance has opened formal proceedings against Judge Michael J. Carrozzo of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court over allegations he abused his position to provide legal assistance and favors to his judicial secretary.

After a preliminary investigation by the judicial oversight agency, the Commission decided to begin formal proceedings on Dec. 12, 2024, over the allegations which could result in removal, censure, or public or private admonishment.

Judge Carrozzo must file a written response to the charges detailed below within 20 days.

A legal representative for Judge Carrozzo acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Formal Proceedings on Dec. 12, 2024.

According to the Commission on Judicial Performance's Notice of Formal Proceedings, Judge Carrozzo specifically violated the language of article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution in six specific counts:

• Count 1: Engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while serving as the Assistant Presiding Judge and then Presiding Judge for the Santa Barbara County Superior Court
• Count 2: Provided statements to the Commission in response to alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics that were "false, misleading, and reflected a lack of candor"
• Count 3: Misused his judicial title and the prestige of the office for the benefit of himself or others
• Count 4: Made "intemperate remarks -about judges, court staff, deputy district attorneys, and the public defender-that could undermine public respect for, and confidence in, the integrity of the judicial system" in correspondences with his judicial secretary
• Count 5: Exhibited a pattern of using public property and resources for personal, non-governmental purposes
• Count 6: Took actions on behalf of his assigned judicial secretary, offered unique opportunities, and afforded special treatment that was not similarly provided or offered to other court staff

From 2017 to 2018, Judge Carrozzo served as the Assistant Presiding Judge and from 2019 to 2020 he served as the Presiding Judge for the Santa Barbara County Superior Court and the allegations below cover that period stated the Notice of Formal Proceedings from the Commission on Judicial Performance.

The court's telephone list identified one judicial secretary, Sara Romero also known as Sara Eklund after her divorce, was assigned to Judge Carrozo from the beginning of that above time frame until July of 2020 noted the Commission.

Count 1

According to the Commission, at various times between 2018 and 2020 Judge Carrozzo used his court email address to send drafts of emails styled as if they were written by Eklund for various recipients of which some are detailed below.

In October of 2018, Eklund was involved in a traffic accident and Judge Carrozzo provided draft language for multiple letters to the other driver's insurance companies with language that alluded to retaining legal counsel and one prepared message that cited case law, statutory authority, and highlighted potential legal liabilities the companies were subject to detailed the Commission.

When those prepared statements went unanswered by the insurance companies, Judge Carrozzo advised Eklund that she could do the following regarding her claim, "we can write the owner and driver threatening legal action...If they won’t pay we will file a small claims case against the driver, owner and [insurance company] (easy I will do it all for you)… If none of that works then we can file a claim with your [insurance] company, but we will increase the pain and suffering to cover the deductible… If you don’t want to deal with it at all[,] I have an attorney friend that will handle everything for you no charge" shared the Commission.

The parentheses in the above quote are original and the brackets were included for clarification purposes by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

On Dec. 7, 2024, Judge Carrozzo emailed Eklund another draft message that demanded the insurance company "make a decision on this claim now", offered to settle the case for $2,500, and threatened to report the issue to the "California Insurance Commissioner" relayed the Commission.

On Dec. 19, 2018, Judge Carrozzo sent Eklund an email with an attached Microsoft Word document entitled "sara.employment.letter" that used Santa Barbara County Superior Court letterhead, was signed by Judge Carrozzo using his official title of Assistant Presiding Judge, and stated that Eklund had missed 12 hours of work in connection with the traffic accident explained the Commission.

The Commission then noted that on Aug. 15, 2019, now-Presiding Judge Carrozzo sent Eklund an email that had an attached document that was a letter from "attorney" Michael Carrozzo to the insurance company about subrogation of Eklund's insurance claims and used the letterhead below:

Judge Carrozzo provided his personal cell as the contact on the letter which was printed in its original form from the email on Aug. 15 and signed by the Presiding Judge, sent by facsimile from the Santa Barbara County Superior Court's administrative office with the seal of the court redacted, and the accompanying cover sheet stating "From: Michael J. Carrozzo" detailed the Commission.

According to the Commission, judges are technically not an active licensee of the California State Bar and are not permitted to practice law while serving as a judge.

Judge Carrozzo then called a representative of the insurance company from his personal cell and, based on that conversation, the insurance company closed the file in favor of Eklund's original claim asserted the Commission which stated, "Your statements to Mr. Lloyd were deliberately deceptive and misleading. You misrepresented material facts and intentionally conveyed the false representation that you were entitled to practice law at that time. Your conduct violated canons 1, 2, 2A, 4A, and 4G of the Code of Judicial Ethics, as well as sections 6125 and 6126(a) of the California Business and Professions Code."

Judge Carrozzo also sent emails to Eklund stylized as if she had written them herself to her landlord concerning the termination of her lease and the possession of her security deposit with one of those emails citing potentially applicable Civil Codes and legal restrictions on what costs landlords can deduct from a deposit shared the Commission.

In June of 2019, Judge Carrozzo provided a letter to Eklund purporting to be from "attorney" Michael Carrozzo, used a letterhead that read "Micheal J. Carrozzo Attorney at Law" which included his personal cell number and email address, stated directly that he represented Eklund, and threatened future litigation against a mattress company that Eklund had ordered from but had not successfully delivered the mattress as promised detailed the Commission.

Count Two

On Aug. 1, 2023, Judge Carrozzo responded to the Commission on Judicial Performance's March 30, 2023, preliminary investigation letter.

Judge Carrozzo suggested that his violation of judicial ethics which bar sitting judges from practicing law was "unintentional" and that he "did not believe, at the time, that providing sample letters to [Eklund] with respect to her insurance claim was engaging in the practice of law" but later acknowledged that, "the sample letters could reasonably be perceived as advocacy" shared the Commission.

In response, the Commission concluded, "These statements and representations – individually and when considered together – were false, misleading, and reflected a lack of candor with the commission" adding, "You knew or should have known that those statements and representations, in your August 1, 2023 response to the commission, were false or misleading. Your conduct violated canons 1, 2, 2A, 3, 3C, and 3D(4) of the Code of Judicial Ethics."

Count Three

As mentioned above, Judge Carrozzo provided an employment verification letter to the insurance company Eklund had a pending claim with using Santa Barbara County Superior Court judicial chambers letterhead and he signed it as the Assistant Presiding Judge noted the Commission.

Employment verification letters that include employment information such as job title or hourly wages should only be provided by an authorized employee of the court that has access to the Human Resources Department's court employee database or payroll records and that the workaround Judge Carrozzo used was "an abuse of authority and violated canons 2, 2A, 2B(1), and 2B(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics" explained the Commission.

On Nov. 4, 2019, Judge Carrozzo composed another employment verification letter to the California Department of Motor Vehicles once again using official court letterhead, a signature block with his name and title, and included his judicial email and direct chambers telephone number detailed the Commission.

In October of 2018, Judge Carrozzo personally requested and received an unredacted copy of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) collision report for Eklund's 2018 traffic accident for her "use and benefit" claimed the Commission.

Additionally, Judge Carrozzo directly contacted a CHP Officer to obtain the collision report with each email in the exchange containing a signature block with his official title, email address, direct chambers telephone number, and a copy of the court's seal detailed the Commission.

The Commission noted that the CHP Officer's first emailed response to Judge Carrozzo's request referred to Judge Carrozzo as "your honor" and Judge Carrozzo provided the unredacted collision report to Eklund on the same day that he received it.

"You had no legal authority to obtain or possess the confidential law enforcement report relating to Ms. Eklund’s October 2018 traffic accident," stated the Commission. "You obtained a copy of the report without completing the required CHP form, signing the required declaration under penalty of perjury, or paying the statutorily mandated fee, as is required of members of the public. Your conduct constituted an abuse of authority and violated canons 2, 2A, 2B(1), and 2B(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics."

The Commission shared that in 2020, Judge Carrozzo attempted to secure future admission for the child he had fathered with Eklund at a school thats name was redacted in the Commission's Notice by sending the following email directly to the school's Director:

Judge Carrozzo sent the above email from his official judicial email address and emailed the response from the school's Director confirming that his unborn child was on the waitlist to Eklund's court email address added the Commission.

Count Four

The Commission detailed that correspondences between Judge Carrozzo and Eklund using their respective court email addresses contained disparaging remarks about multiple parties that interacted with the court including fellow judges and court staff, deputy district attorneys, and public defenders.

Judge Carrozzo and Eklund had no reasonable expectation of privacy when using court provided email accounts noted the Commission.

Additionally, Judge Carrozzo encouraged and invited Eklund to make such comments and failed to correct or dissuade the behavior which, "reflected bias, prejudice, or harassment on the basis of age, or created an appearance thereof" regarding fellow Superior Court Judge Adams stated the Commission.

Disparaging remarks were also made about other Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judges including Judge Jean Dandona, Judge Patricia Kelly, Judge James Herman, then-Assistant Presiding Judge Gutavo Lavayen, Judge Raimondo Montes De Oca, Judge Pauline Maxwell, and Judge Donna Geck shared the Commission.

Additionally, Judge Carrozzo and Eklund used their court-provided emails to make disrespectful comments about court staff members including David Glasheen, Robert Palmer, Craig Kohler, Christina Cruz, CEO Darrel Parker, and the Employee Spotlight Committee as well as Public Defender Tracy Macuga, Deputy District Attorney Brian Cota, and Deputy District Attorney Carl Barnes listed the Commission.

Count Five

The Commission details in Count Five of the Notice of Formal Proceedings that Judge Carrozzo and Eklund, "engaged in a pattern of using public property and resources – including the court’s email, facsimile machine, telephones, computer system, and other court resources – for personal, nongovernmental purposes. Your use of public property and resources did not constitute incidental or de minimis use of public resources."

The hundreds of emails exchanged through official court email addresses contained, in addition to the legal advice and draft legal correspondences, "overly casual, and sometimes flirtatious" exchanges that, "facilitated your romantic pursuit of her or created an appearance thereof" noted the Commission.

Count Six

The Commission stated that Judge Carrozzo, "took actions on Ms. Eklund’s behalf, offered her unique opportunities, and afforded her special treatment that you did not similarly provide or offer to other court staff".

The Commission concluded that:

You took such actions when you and Ms. Eklund were “good friends,” when you were in a romantic dating relationship with Ms. Eklund, and when Ms. Eklund was pregnant with your child. As a superior court judge, and particularly while serving as Assistant Presiding Judge and Presiding Judge, you had a supervisory role over Ms. Eklund, and you exercised direction and control over her, while maintaining a close friendship with her and while engaging in an intimate personal relationship
with her.

With respect to Ms. Eklund, your conduct in 2018, 2019, and 2020, reflected favoritism or created an appearance thereof. 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.

Your conduct violated canons 2, 2A, 2B(1), 3C(1), 3C(5), and 4A of
the Code of Judicial Ethics.

Your News Channel reached out to Judge Carrozzo's legal representative for comment and will update this article with that statement when it is received.