1 week Ago
A robot hand with the letter AI and a lady justice. In what might be the most unusual courtroom scene of 2025 so far, a New York appeals court recently encountered something unprecedented when a litigant attempted to have an artificial intelligence avatar present oral arguments on his behalf, raising serious questions about the boundaries of AI in judicial proceedings, the AP reports. The incident occurred on Mar.
26 in the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division's First Judicial Department, where Jerome Dewald , a plaintiff representing himself in an employment dispute against MassMutual Metro, was scheduled to present arguments. Instead of appearing personally, Dewald submitted what was initially described as a video presentation. What happened next left the judicial panel visibly stunned.
"The appellant has submitted a video for his argument," announced Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, before a youthful-looking man with styled hair, dressed in a button-down shirt and sweater, appeared on screen. This was no pre-recorded video of Dewald himself, but rather a completely AI-generated avatar programmed to deliver his legal arguments. The judges quickly realized they were not addressing a human being and were notably displeased by the unexpected digital stand-in.
The justices had taken special accommodations for what they believed would be an audio-visual presentation from a pro se litigant, even taking the matter out of turn to address technical requirements. Finding themselves face to face with an AI construct instead came as an unwelcome surprise. According to court observers, the avatar managed only a few moments of speaking time, beginning with traditional courtroom pleasantries before the judges intervened.
One judge pointedly noted that "it would have been nice to know that" Dewald planned to use an AI representation when making his application to the court. This case represents an escalation in the ongoing integration of artificial intelligence into legal processes. While AI tools have become increasingly common for legal research and document drafting , Dewald's attempt to deploy an avatar for direct court representation crosses into largely uncharted territory.
Dewald himself is reportedly no stranger to the intersection of AI and law. He is described as a pioneer in AI and programming with a diverse background spanning computer science, psychology, and entrepreneurship. He founded ProSe Pro , an AI tool designed to assist unrepresented litigants navigate the legal system more effectively.
Legal experts point out several problems with using AI avatars for courtroom advocacy. As one commentator noted, if a self-represented litigant fears they lack sufficient legal knowledge, having an AI deliver arguments would simply be "garbage in, garbage out" in terms of legal reasoning. More fundamentally, oral arguments involve dynamic interaction between advocates and judges, with questions often guiding and clarifying the legal issues at stake.
An avatar lacks the ability to respond meaningfully to unexpected inquiries or adjust arguments based on judicial feedback. This incident highlights the tension between technological innovation and courtroom tradition. While digital tools continue to transform many aspects of legal practice, the judiciary appears to be drawing a clear line when it comes to who or what can address the court directly.
Legal tech entrepreneurs and AI developers, take note: tools that assist human lawyers may find acceptance, but attempts to replace human advocacy entirely will likely face significant resistance from the bench. The court ultimately required Dewald to make his arguments personally, reinforcing the principle that human representation remains fundamental to our judicial process, at least for now..
