Plaintiff’s attempt to use AI representative in court instantly backfires
The judge ruled that the AI was not a licensed attorney and could not represent the plaintiff in court. The plaintiff's reliance on AI technology was deemed inappropriate for the legal proceedings. This incident highlights the limitations and ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI in the legal field. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of human expertise and judgment in legal matters.
A plaintiff’s attempt to use Artificial Intelligence in the New York State Supreme Court quickly went awry as a judge yelled across the courtroom to pull the plug. When Jerom Dewald, a plaintiff in an employment dispute, was scheduled to speak to the New York State Supreme Court on March 26, 2025, someone else, or rather, something else spoke instead. Rather than delivering his own opening presentation, Dewald instead turned to Artificial Intelligence, relying on an AI avatar to do the job for him. What appeared on the courtroom television screen was a light-skinned, blonde-haired male that happened to be entirely AI-generated.
Mere seconds into the opening statement from the AI avatar, Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, one of five judges on the panel, interrupted and cut the video off before blasting the plaintiff for all to hear.
AI Avatar Gets Cut Off in New York State Supreme Court
Dewald put in a special request prior to his court date. While he didn’t get explicit permission for an AI-generated legal assistant, he did claim to have asked for permission to play a prerecorded video in the court. To the surprise of the judges on the day, Dewald’s pre-recorded video wasn’t of himself. According to the Associated Press, the plaintiff sought to generate an AI avatar of himself with the help of a “San Francisco tech company.” However, as time ran short, he pivoted to using the generic avatar we all saw. The purpose was to allow for Dewald to have his opening speech delivered seamlessly, as he allegedly struggles with mumbling and the like. The effort was for naught in the end, as the AI’s appearance in the courtroom was short-lived.
“Okay, hold on, is that counsel for the case?” Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels questioned, proceeding to have the video turned off entirely. “I generated that. It’s not a real person,” Dewald replied. “It would have been nice to know that when you made your application,” the judge fired back. “You did not tell me that, sir... I don’t appreciate being misled.”
Furthermore, the judge alleged that Dewald was simply using his time in court as a launching pad for a new AI-focused company. “You are not going to use this courtroom as a launch for your business, sir,” she said bluntly. “They chewed me up pretty good,” Dewald later said in an interview with the Associated Press. “The court was really upset about it.” Dewald eventually filed an apology to the court.