AI Avatar Attempts to Represent Individual in New York Court

In a surprising incident, a U.S. citizen attempted to utilize an AI-generated avatar as legal representation in a New York court. The event unfolded on March 26 in the First Judicial Department of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, where Jerome Dewald was seeking to resolve a labor dispute against MassMutual regarding a contentious arbitration clause in his employment contract.

Dewald seemingly aimed to bypass the need for traditional legal counsel by presenting a video featuring the AI avatar. Initially, the presiding judge, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, appeared receptive to viewing the audiovisual material, which Dewald had submitted as part of his argument. However, the situation quickly shifted when the avatar, which presented itself as a 'humble representative,' was revealed to be a computer-generated figure rather than a real attorney.

Upon realizing the nature of the presentation, Judge Manzanet-Daniels expressed her disapproval, questioning Dewald about his intentions. The judge made it clear that the court could not be misled by the use of artificial intelligence in such a manner, asserting the necessity for transparency regarding Dewald's capabilities and whether he required assistance due to any incapacity.

As the court session progressed, Dewald was given five minutes to articulate his case. Although he struggled initially, relying on his smartphone for assistance, he eventually managed to present his arguments, albeit without the eloquence typically expected in legal proceedings.

This incident sheds light on the ongoing complexities surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in legal contexts. In jurisdictions like Germany, AI cannot legally represent individuals in court due to the requirement for licensed attorneys and the necessity of personal interaction. The situation in the United States is more fluid, but current regulations also prevent AI from acting as a substitute for human lawyers in court settings.

Previous instances have demonstrated the legal implications of relying on AI in legal matters. For example, two lawyers in New York faced penalties in 2023 for citing fictitious precedents generated by ChatGPT. Dewald later acknowledged that his approach was ill-conceived, admitting that the court's reaction was unfavorable and that he had been subjected to considerable scrutiny during the proceedings.