An AI-powered avatar attempted to present legal arguments in a New York courtroom on March 26, 2025, during an appeals case involving Jerome Dewald, a pro se litigant in an employment dispute. However, the judges quickly realized that the individual speaking on the video screen was not a real person but rather an avatar generated by artificial intelligence (AI). This incident highlights the challenges and controversies surrounding the use of AI in legal proceedings.

Step-by-Step Breakdown of Events

Background of the Case

Jerome Dewald, who was representing himself (pro se) in an employment-related lawsuit against MassMutual Metro, sought permission from the court to play a prerecorded video as part of his argument. The court granted this request without being informed that the video would feature an AI-generated avatar instead of Dewald himself.

The Courtroom Incident

When the video began playing, it featured a smiling man with a youthful appearance and professional attire delivering opening remarks such as “May it please the court.” Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels interrupted shortly after noticing something unusual and asked whether this was counsel for the case. Dewald admitted that he had created the avatar using AI technology and that it was not a real person.

The judges expressed frustration at not being informed beforehand about the use of synthetic media. Justice Manzanet-Daniels stated, “I don’t appreciate being misled,” and ordered the video to be shut off immediately. Despite their displeasure, they allowed Dewald to continue presenting his arguments verbally.

Reason for Using an Avatar

Dewald later explained that he had no intention of misleading or offending the court. He opted for an AI-generated avatar because he felt it could deliver his arguments more clearly than he could personally due to his tendency to stumble over words when speaking publicly. He also apologized to the court for any misunderstanding caused by his actions.

Broader Context: Use of AI in Legal Settings

This incident is part of a broader trend where artificial intelligence is increasingly being integrated into various aspects of legal practice. While some courts have begun experimenting with AI tools—such as Arizona’s Supreme Court using avatars named “Daniel” and “Victoria” to summarize rulings—this case demonstrates how unregulated or improper use can lead to ethical concerns and procedural issues.

Even licensed attorneys have faced consequences for misusing AI tools:

• In June 2023, two lawyers were fined $5,000 each after citing fictitious legal cases generated by an AI chatbot.
• Similarly, Michael Cohen’s legal team mistakenly cited fabricated rulings produced by another AI tool later that year.

These examples underscore how reliance on generative AI without proper oversight can result in significant errors or even sanctions.

Expert Opinions on AI in Legal Proceedings

Legal experts like Daniel Shin from William & Mary Law School noted that while such incidents were inevitable given technological advancements, they highlight gaps in understanding and regulating synthetic media within judicial systems. Shin emphasized that self-represented litigants are often unaware of potential risks associated with using generative technologies like avatars or chatbots for legal purposes.

Current Status of Dewald’s Case

As of April 4, 2025, Jerome Dewald’s appeal remains pending before the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department. The judges have yet to issue a ruling on his underlying employment dispute but made it clear during proceedings that transparency and adherence to courtroom protocols are paramount when introducing novel technologies like AI-generated avatars.

n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a n04a