A New York courtroom was briefly interrupted and shocked when Jerome Dewald chose to argue his case with the help of an AI avatar.
The court was caught off guard since he had not informed the court of the AI use in advance. Dewald, a 74-year-old tech founder, was representing himself in an appeal against MassMutual Metro New York and had received permission to submit a pre-recorded video because of medical challenges following throat cancer. However, what appeared on screen during the March 26 hearing was not Dewald at all. Instead, “Jim,” a computer-generated character created using the AI tool Tavus, spoke to the court’s surprise.
The court session was streamed via YouTube. The AI lawyer began with a formal introduction, “Now may it please the court, I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of five distinguished justices.”
Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels interrupted to ask whether the speaker was actually counsel for the case. When Dewald admitted the image was not real, the panel of New York judges verbally admonished him for the stunt.
“It would have been nice to know that when you made your application,” Manzanet-Daniels told him. “You did not tell me that, sir. I don’t appreciate being misled.”
The justices allowed Dewald to proceed in person but firmly warned that the courtroom is not a venue for demonstrating new technology. He later told The Register that the judges seemed “unprepared to see an artificially generated image” and that Manzanet-Daniels’ tone softened once he began to argue his case live.
Dewald is not the first court participant to use AI to aid their performance. Multiple instances of lawyers drafting briefs using AI have been documented. Though the technology is advancing rapidly, various errors, including fictional legal precedent, have earned lawyers a range of sanctions.
The Guardian reported on an Australian lawyer who was heavily sanctioned for using AI technology to prepare briefs, which led to fictitious precedents being presented in court. After being referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board, the unnamed lawyer’s certificate is now “varied.”
Consequently, “he was no longer entitled to practise as a principal lawyer, not authorised to handle trust money, would no longer operate his own law practice, and would only practise as an employee solicitor.”
These incidents are only the tip of the iceberg and are becoming somewhat common. The pace of AI regulation is not keeping up with its accelerated growth. Only time will tell whether or not artificial intelligence becomes a regular practice in the courtroom.
RELATED CONTENT: Yikes! Artificial Intelligence School To Open In Virginia