Inquiry into the Conduct of Karasov, 805 N.W.2d 255

Board on Judicial Standards filed a formal complaint against Judge Patricia Karasov alleging residency violations and lack of candor in investigation.
Panel found she did not reside in the Fourth Judicial District from July 1 to September 30, 2009 and was not forthcoming with investigators.
Judge kept Edina townhouse (within the district) while simultaneously occupying a lake home outside the district and renting the Edina home during the period in question.
She moved to live at the Fremont Avenue apartment in Minneapolis only after learning of the Board’s investigation.
Board sought sanctions; Karasov challenged the panel’s findings and sanctions, Board cross-appealed on sanctions.
Court held Board proved misconduct by clear and convincing evidence and imposed censure with a 6-month, unpaid suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Residency violation by judge	Board argues Karasov resided outside district July–Sept 2009.	Karasov contends residency remained with district and actions show intent to stay.	Yes; highly probable nonresidence July–Sept 2009.
Violation of Rule 2.16(A) (cooperation and candor)	Karasov made misrepresentations and omissions to the Board and its counsel.	Karasov disputes materiality and sufficiency of the Board’s claims.	Yes; affirmative misrepresentation and material omissions found.
Due process implications of the proceedings	No defense to due process violations; Board complied with process.	Due process alleged due to bias, notice, and complaint drafting defects.	No due process violation; proceedings were not fundamentally unfair.
Standard and scope of review for panel findings	Board argues de novo review; Panel findings should be given deference under rule changes.	Karasov contends various procedural failures; review should safeguard rights.	Court independently reviews but defers to panel on factual findings; standards applied as stated.

In re Blakely, 772 N.W.2d 516 (Minn. 2009) (clear and convincing standard for judicial misconduct)
In re Murphy, 737 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 2007) (panel findings reviewed with independent judgment)
In re Miera, 426 N.W.2d 850 (Minn. 1988) (definition of clear and convincing evidence; standards of proof)
In re Kirby, 354 N.W.2d 410 (Minn. 1984) (due process in disciplinary proceedings; impartial tribunal)
In re Ginsberg, 690 N.W.2d 539 (Minn. 2004) (public confidence and integrity; sanctions framework)
In re Winton, 350 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. 1984) (serious misconduct and integrity concerns; removal standards)
In re Gillard, 271 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 1982) (serious misconduct; impact on public confidence)
Piepho v. Bruns, 652 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 2002) ( residency concepts; physical presence and intent in election context)
Olson v. Zuehlke, 652 N.W.2d 37 (Minn. 2002) ( residency and domicile; living arrangements)
Studer v. Kiffmeyer, 712 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 2006) (residency intent; circumstantial evidence of intent)