Rather than face the withering full-court press threatened by the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance about alleged ethical breaches, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Michael Carrozzo agreed to step down from the bench as of June 2 and never to seek, accept, or hold any positions of judicial responsibility in California for the rest of his life.
While Carrozzo is hardly the first Santa Barbara Judge to face controversy — or even criticism from the Commission on Judicial Performance — he is the first in living memory to leave office before his term expires as a result. Or put in legal terms, Carrozzo agreed to accept “an irrevocable resignation from office” to resolve the “imposition of a severe public censure.”
Carrozzo, a former prosecuting attorney with a prior history as a JAG officer (the military equivalent of a judge) while serving in the military, is one of two South Coast judges who brings with him a deep background in criminal law. It remains to be seen what impact his departure will have on caseload and case management — hot-button issues in the context of the ongoing debate about how many jail beds the county needs.
Carrozzo was appointed to the bench in 2014 and served as presiding judge in 2020 during the height of the COVID pandemic. Some have suggested the bruised feelings he engendered among other judges during the pandemic might have helped spark the initial investigation of judicial misconduct.
According to the 40-page bill of particulars prepared by the commission, Carrozzo repeatedly violated judicial ethics by representing himself as the attorney representing his then administrative assistant — and now his wife — Sara Eklund. According to state judicial ethics rules, sitting judges are barred from practicing law in California. Carrozzo repeatedly did just that, crafting tough-talking legal letters on behalf of Eklund, who was frustrated by her insurance company’s failure to respond after she’d been hit in a car accident in 2018. In an email to Eklund, Carrozzo wrote, “I promise a good result, but it may get ugly.” In some communications, Carrozzo identified himself as “an attorney at law,” and instructed attorneys for the insurance company to contact him rather than Eklund.
In other instances, the judge wrote stern notes on behalf of Eklund when her landlord increased her rent. He wrote similar letters for her in a dispute over the purchase of a new mattress and in getting their unborn child placed on a college waiting list.
According to the commission’s findings, Carrozzo was initially less than forthcoming when asked by investigators whether he falsely represented himself as an attorney licensed to practice law. Initially, he reportedly stated that any violation of the ethics code was “unintentional.” He also stated that at the time he sent those letters he did not believe that doing so was to be engaged in the practice of law. Some of those letters, he noted, were never actually sent, but merely written and forwarded to Eklund. More recently, however, Carrozzo acknowledged those letters clearly suggested he was a lawyer in good standing with the state, and not a judge barred from the practice of law.
By agreeing to plead guilty to these complaints, he effectively put to rest three additional complaints that were more personal in nature. The commission had concluded that the email history between Carrozzo and Eklund contained snarky comments by the judge about other judges, court staff, and attorneys “that could undermine public respect for and confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.” More specifically, the commission concluded these emails reflected “a pattern of making comments that were gratuitous, unprofessional, disrespectful, and unkind.”
The commission also suggested that Carrozzo provided numerous opportunities of a professional nature for Eklund, over whom he held a direct supervisor relationship, during the time of their courtship. This, the commission concluded, “reflected favoritism or created an appearance thereof.”
In his defense papers, Carrozzo argued that Eklund’s emails should have been off limits to the commission given that she is not a judge and hence outside the commission’s jurisdictional scope of scope of inquiry.
Attorney Heather Rosing, who represented Carrozzo in these deliberations, issued a statement on Carrozzo’s behalf. “Mike Carrozzo is kind, hardworking, and skilled and has served the people of California well, first as a Deputy DA and then as a judge. Sometimes the right thing to do for your family as well as your court and colleagues is to move on, which is what Mike Carrozzo agreed to do last week,” she stated. “Mike Carrozzo is grateful for the opportunities given to him by his court and thanks his wife for standing by him.”
