One Santa Barbara Judge Censured for Courtroom Behavior, Another Charged with Willful Misconduct

In Separate Actions, State Commission Targets Thomas R. Adams and Michael J. Carrozzo for Discipline

Thomas R. Adams (left) and Michael J. Carrozzo | Credit: Courtesy

Two Santa Barbara County judges who preside over criminal cases now find themselves on the hot seat after the Commission on Judicial Performance reprimanded one for poor courtroom behavior and accused the other of willfully abusing his authority.

The unrelated matters were made public in reports filed last month by the six-member commission, an independent state agency tasked with investigating allegations of judicial misconduct.

The first report details a 2023 incident during which Judge Thomas R. Adams became so angry and impatient with an attorney that he “raised his voice and rose from the bench when addressing her, threw off his glasses, and flung papers at her.”

The commission noted the attorney, a public defender, was admitted to the bar only three months earlier and was so distressed by the incident that her superiors sent her home for the day. When contacted by the agency about his outburst, Adams attempted to discredit the attorney by stating, without evidence, that she’d had prior “issues” with court personnel.

The commission also referenced other disciplinary actions against Adams, who was first elected to the bench in 1983, ran unopposed in 2021, and currently presides over all South County criminal arraignments. He was previously admonished in 1993 for jailing a family law litigant for two days without a contempt hearing, “an egregious violation of due process,” the agency found.

He was further cited for, among other things, “failing to cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business”; “engaging in speech that would reasonably be perceived as bias, prejudice, or harassment” when he agreed with a defendant that a female attorney was “so beautiful”; and failing to disclose ex parte communication with a jury foreperson.

Moreover, the agency said Adams “made misleading statements” during its most recent investigation. Arguing that no discipline was warranted, Adams, who is 84 years old, assured the commission his retirement was imminent when his private communications at the time made it clear he had no intention of retiring. “Such a lack of candor with the commission is serious misconduct,” the agency said.

Adams did not respond to requests for comment.

Two days after reprimanding Adams, the commission issued a 40-page “Notice of Formal Proceedings” against Judge Michael J. Carrozzo, charging him with “willful misconduct in office” and “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.”

The allegations are based on actions Carrozzo took between 2017 and 2020 on behalf of his then-secretary, Sara Eklund, who would later become his wife. Carrozzo, the agency claimed, represented himself as Eklund’s attorney during her divorce proceedings and after she was involved in a car accident, a major breach of judicial ethics and violation of the California Constitution that could warrant removal from the bench.

The commission also accused Carrozzo, a former prosecutor appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2014, of using his clout as a judge to fight a rent increase for Eklund, speed up a mattress delivery, and secure admission to a high-demand school for one of their children.

Among the most damning pieces of evidence against Carrozzo is a recorded phone conversation between himself and the insurance agent handling Eklund’s accident claim, wherein Carrozzo allegedly stated he represented Eklund.

“When you spoke on the telephone you knew that, as a judge, you were not an active licensee of the California State Bar and were not permitted to practice law,” the notice said. Carrozzo also reportedly used “attorney at law” and Santa Barbara Superior Court letterhead to communicate with others on Eklund’s behalf.

During the early stages of the commission’s investigation, Carrozzo defended himself by claiming he hadn’t intentionally advocated for Eklund in an official legal capacity. The commission didn’t buy it. “These statements and representations — individually and when considered together — were false, misleading and reflected a lack of candor with the commission,” the notice said.

Last week, Carrozzo’s attorney, Heather Rosing, submitted a formal response to the charges. “Judge Carrozzo accepts full responsibility for his conduct,” Rosing stated. “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.”

However, Rosing goes on, Carrozzo “cannot and does not accept responsibility for allegations that are false,” including making misleading statements to the commission. “None of the Commission’s allegations relate to Judge Carrozzo’s official acts on the bench, to a case or matter before the court, or involve allegations that Judge Carrozzo failed to perform his judicial duties,” she said. Therefore, Rosing suggested, her client ought to be privately or publicly admonished, not removed from office.

In a separate statement, Rosing reiterated that the commission failed to show Carrozzo had made any substantive errors as a judge. “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,” she said.

The matter will next be heard by a special master appointed by the California Supreme Court. Both sides can present evidence and introduce witnesses during the hearing, after which the special master will submit a report to the commission with their findings.