AI Avatar Causes Uproar in New York Court

In a recent and unusual turn of events, a man named Jerome Dewald attempted to use an AI-generated avatar to present his arguments in an employment dispute before a panel of judges in New York. Dewald, who was representing himself in the lawsuit, believed that the avatar would deliver his presentation more smoothly than he could, given his tendency to stumble over words. The court had made a special accommodation to allow a prerecorded video, but the judges were taken aback when they realized the avatar was not a real person.

The incident unfolded in the Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department of the Supreme Court. Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, upon seeing the avatar on the video screen, initially mistook it for counsel. When it became clear that the avatar was not a real person, the judge expressed her displeasure. "It would have been nice to know that when you made your application. You did not tell me that sir," Manzanet-Daniels said before ordering the video to be shut off. She later allowed Dewald to continue with his argument but made it clear that she did not appreciate being misled.

Dewald later apologized to the court, explaining that he had used a product created by a San Francisco tech company to generate the avatar. He had initially tried to create a digital replica that looked like him but was unable to do so before the hearing. In an interview, Dewald conceded that the court was upset about his use of the avatar, stating that the judges "chewed me up pretty good."

This incident is not the first time that the use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings has caused issues. In June 2023, two attorneys and a law firm were fined for citing fictitious legal cases generated by an AI tool. Later that year, lawyers for Michael cohen also cited AI-generated court rulings in legal papers. These incidents highlight the potential pitfalls of relying on AI in legal research and presentations.

Despite these issues, some courts are beginning to explore the use of AI-generated avatars. Arizona's Supreme Court, for example, has started using two AI-generated avatars to summarize court rulings for the public. These avatars, named "Daniel" and "Victoria," are designed to share news and information with the public in a more accessible format.

Ask Aime: What will be the long-term impact of AI-generated avatars in courtrooms on legal proceedings and societal norms?

Daniel Shin, an adjunct professor and assistant director of research at the Center for Legal and Court Technology at William & Mary Law School, noted that while lawyers are unlikely to use AI-generated avatars due to tradition and court rules, individuals representing themselves may be more inclined to do so. He also pointed out that such individuals are usually not given instructions about the risks of using synthetically produced videos to present their cases.

Dewald's case remains pending before the appeals court, and it serves as a reminder of the complexities and potential challenges that arise when integrating AI into legal proceedings. As technology continues to advance, it will be crucial for courts to establish clear guidelines and protocols for the use of AI to ensure fairness and transparency in legal processes.