A recent case in the New York State Supreme Court raises fundamental questions about AI’s limits in the courtroom. Dr. Eyal Brook, of the AI practice at S. Horowitz, reviews a case in which a self-represented litigant presented his arguments via a video featuring an AI-generated avatar, without disclosing this in advance.
An extraordinary case recently took place in the New York State Supreme Court, when Jerome Dewald, 74, appeared before the court in a labor dispute case against MassMutual Metro New York. Dewald, who represented himself, sought to present an argument via a video, but did not disclose in advance that the video included an avatar generated using artificial intelligence.
The avatar, named “Jim,” was created using software from the San Francisco-based company Tavus. Dewald explained that he chose the avatar because of difficulty speaking at length, stemming from throat cancer he had previously undergone.
As the video began playing, the judge immediately noticed that it was an artificial figure and ordered the video stopped. She expressed her displeasure that no advance notice had been given regarding the use of the avatar, and emphasized that she does not appreciate this kind of deception. The judge noted that Dewald had previously appeared before the court and spoken in person, so it was unclear why he chose to use an avatar this time. She also expressed concern that the use of the avatar might serve to promote Dewald’s own AI-based legal consulting business.
Dewald apologized to the court and explained that he had no intention to mislead, but only wished to present his arguments more clearly. He admitted that he had been unable to create an avatar resembling himself, and therefore used a standard character from the software. Following the incident, Dewald sent a letter of apology to the court.
This case highlights the legal and ethical challenges arising from the growing use of artificial intelligence in the judicial system. While some courts, such as the Arizona Supreme Court, have begun using AI-based avatars to explain rulings to the public, using avatars to present legal arguments raises complex questions, as it may mislead the court as to the speaker’s identity, hinder assessment of credibility, and undermine fundamental principles of the judicial process such as transparency, accountability, and fairness.
