The scene could have been lifted from a movie, but it really took place at the New York State Supreme Court on March 26.
In fact, 74‑year‑old Jerome Dewald was appearing in court over a lawsuit against his former employer. With no lawyer to represent him, he offered to play a pre‑recorded video to present his defense.
The courtroom was stunned when the speaker—an AI‑generated digital avatar of a man in his thirties, bearing no resemblance to the plaintiff—appeared on the screen.
“Is this a counsel for the complaint?” wondered Judge Sallie Manzanet‑Daniels.
“I generated it. It’s not a real person” Dewald replied simply.
The judge’s response was unequivocal: “It would have been nice to inform us of that […] I don’t appreciate being misled […] Turn that off!”
Later, Mr. Dewald apologized to the Court, citing his fear of stuttering.
Artificial intelligence is transforming our professions, but its intrusion into the sacred halls of justice raises crucial questions.
Beyond the anecdote, this unprecedented case highlights several fundamental issues for our profession 🔍:
- Authenticity of Testimony: Using an AI‑generated avatar to speak in court raises questions about the truthfulness and credibility of the statements made. How can we verify the identity and sincerity of testimony delivered by an avatar? AI can erase signs of nervousness or deceit, or conversely, fake a misleading confidence.
- Adherence to Judicial Protocols: Although Mr. Dewald later apologized—citing his fear of stuttering and his inability to create a likeness of himself—his unilateral initiative was a serious breach of established procedures. Indeed, deploying such disruptive technology without prior notification to the court and opposing parties undermines the principles of adversarial fairness and procedural good faith. ⚖️
- Fairness and Integrity of the Trial: Could the use of an avatar unduly influence the judge or a jury? Might it create an imbalance between a party leveraging AI and one speaking “naturally”? The integrity of the hearing is at stake.
- Lack of Regulatory Framework: This case exposes a legal vacuum regarding the use of AI technologies in judicial proceedings. 💡
An Essential Ethical Reflection 🧠
Beyond purely legal considerations, this singular episode serves as a warning ⚠️: the hasty or opaque adoption of AI in the courtroom can have disastrous consequences.
The emergence of virtual representations raises the critical question of legal identity in the digital age: who is truly speaking when an avatar takes the stand?
While Jerome Dewald paid the price for his clumsy innovation, his case will undeniably become informal precedent in this area—technology must serve justice without distorting it.
💬 What limits should we set for AI in our hearings?
