Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Michael Carrozzo denied that his misconduct rose to a level that should lead to censure or removal from office and contended that the state investigator obtained some information illegally.

The Commission on Judicial Performance notified Carrozzo of the proceedings in December.

Weeks later, his attorney filed an answer that claimed the state investigator violated privacy laws in collecting information for the case.

Specifically, the formal proceedings notice charged Carrozzo with willful misconduct in office, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, and improper action under the California Constitution.

The state’s notice detailed the six counts, including misconduct accusations that Carrozzo acted as an attorney, abused his authority and disparaged court staff. 

Most of the allegations centered on his former judicial secretary, who later became his wife.

“Judge Carrozzo accepts full responsibility for his conduct. He offers no excuses. Most importantly, he has learned from these experiences, sought additional training and mentorship, and will not permit reoccurrence of the violations,” Carrazzo’s attorney, Heather Rosing of Rosing, Pott & Strohbehn, wrote in the answer to the allegations. “He cannot and does not, however, accept responsibility for allegations that are false.”

In the answer, Carrozzo also contended that much of the evidence mentioned the complaint had been obtained from a third-party server. 

The judge and others have a right to privacy, so the commission’s investigator should have obtained authorization or a subpoena, alerting Carrozzo and others and allowing them the chance to quash or seek a protective order.

“The examiner failed to comply with privacy laws and thus obtained the information illegally,” the answer states, a sentence repeated 15 additional times.

Carrozzo’s answer also criticized other aspects of the proceedings, calling it “defective in that it contains so much extraneous, unnecessary and inflammatory material that it violates commission rules.”

The allegations stem from when Carrozzo served as assistant presiding judge in 2017 and 2018 and presiding judge in 2019 and 2020.

The state panel contended that the judge was “deliberately deceptive and misleading.”

“You misrepresented material facts and intentionally conveyed the false representation that you were entitled to practice law at that time,” according to the notice.

During the preliminary investigation into the allegations, Carrozzo claimed he unintentionally practiced law, saying he didn’t believe supplying sample letters could be viewed as advocating on behalf of Eklund. 

“These statements and representations — individually and when considered together — were false, misleading and reflected a lack of candor with the commission,” the commission’s notice said, adding that they were sent on “attorney at law” letterhead.

The commission also accused Carrozzo of making “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.”

The evidentiary hearing before a panel of special masters likely will occur this spring and ultimately lead to completion of a report. 

The matter could land in the hands of the Commission on Judicial Performance in the fall, staff said. The commission would review the special masters report, details of the evidentiary hearing, briefs and arguments before deciding on whether to take discipline action against Carrozzo.

Discipline options for the state panel include an advisory letter, public or private admonishment, public censure or removal from office/involuntary retirement.

Judges can accept the commission’s decision or petition the California Supreme Court for review. The state’s highest court could grant the review and then affirm or reverse the decision or decline to review the matter.