Judges Get Immunity for AI Misuse While Lawyers Get Sanctioned

In the District of Nevada, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed a lawsuit against family court judge Mari Parlade. The plaintiff, California attorney Matthew Phillips, alleged that Judge Parlade delegated her decision-making authority entirely to artificial intelligence when denying five of his motions and assessing fees against him. Judge Navarro ruled that issuing orders is an official judicial act. Because of that, absolute judicial immunity protects the judge, regardless of whether AI actually generated the ruling.

Think about what that means for your practice. As managing partners, we spend our weeks building risk-management protocols, training associates on hallucination risks, and monitoring state bar notices. We do this because the judiciary is hammering our profession over AI missteps. Yet the bench has quietly carved itself a complete exemption from the same technology risks.

If an associate submits a brief drafted by an algorithm, your firm faces sanctions. If a judge allegedly does the same thing, absolute immunity absorbs the liability.

The Double Standard Facing the Bar

The contrast between how courts treat the bar and how they protect themselves is stark. Across the country, judges routinely issue standing orders demanding strict disclosures and personal certifications for generative AI use. Florida’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit, for instance, issued Administrative Order 26-04, requiring lawyers and pro se parties to certify independent verification of every factual assertion and legal authority generated by AI.

The enforcement mechanism behind these orders is not theoretical. Courts regularly issue severe sanctions for AI errors. The New Mexico Supreme Court fined attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000, found him in contempt, and removed him from an appeal for filing a brief with AI-generated false testimony. In Connecticut, Judge Walter Spader Jr. revoked a litigant's electronic filing privileges for embedding invisible prompt-injection text into court filings. In federal court, Judge P. Kevin Castel levied a $5,000 fine against attorney Cathleen Siebrecht for submitting fictitious case law.

Yet under Judge Navarro's ruling, a judge who allegedly abdicates all human discretion to a software prompt operates behind an impenetrable shield of absolute immunity. If an associate in your firm submits a brief drafted entirely by an unverified algorithm, your partnership faces fines, mandatory bar reports, and public humiliation. If a judge allegedly does the exact same thing to issue an order stripping a client of property or custody, the official act doctrine absorbs the liability completely.

Why the Bench Defends the Shield

Defenders of absolute judicial immunity will argue that the doctrine exists to protect judicial independence, not the technology itself. Without immunity, disgruntled litigants would file endless collateral suits alleging that every unfavorable order was secretly drafted by an unvetted algorithm. Courts would spend their days litigating their own internal drafting processes rather than resolving disputes.

That argument is structurally sound, but it ignores the reality of modern court administration. As reported by Lawfare, when researchers presented on legal AI at the D.C. Circuit Judicial Conference, federal judges focused their questions not on policing litigants, but on whether and how courts themselves should adopt AI tools. Judges are facing the same caseload pressures and efficiency promises that hit law firms. The temptation to offload draft orders to algorithms is real.

How Partnerships Must Respond

This asymmetry changes how law firms must evaluate record building and appellate strategy. You cannot sue a judge who outsources a ruling to an algorithm, but you can build a record that makes automated decision-making reversible on appeal.

First, audit every adverse order for algorithmic markers. If an order includes generic boilerplate, hallucinates facts outside the record, or fails to address specific statutory factors required under state law, do not rely on standard post-trial motions. Move immediately for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Second, preserve procedural due process objections early. If a court's ruling displays structural anomalies, object on the record to the lack of meaningful human judicial review. You will not win a damages suit against the judge, but you will create a clean record for an appellate division that may be far less comfortable with automated adjudication than a district court applying absolute immunity.

If the judiciary insists on holding practicing lawyers to zero-tolerance standards while shielding its own bench behind absolute immunity, our only recourse is relentless procedural resistance on appeal.