Digital Version: Man employs AI avatar to argue case; judge not amused

Jerome Dewald sat with his legs crossed and his hands folded in his lap in front of an appellate panel of New York state judges, ready to argue for a reversal of a lower court’s decision in his dispute with a former employer.

The court had allowed Dewald, who is not a lawyer and was representing himself, to accompany his argument with a prerecorded video presentation.

As the video began to play, it showed a man seemingly younger than Dewald’s 74 years wearing a blue collared shirt and a beige sweater and standing in front of what appeared to be a blurred virtual background.

A few seconds into the video, one of the judges, confused by the image, asked Dewald if the man was his lawyer.

“I generated that,” Dewald responded. “That is not a real person.”

The judge, Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels of the Appellate Division’s 1st Judicial Department, paused for a moment. “I don’t appreciate being misled,” she snapped before yelling for someone to turn off the video.

What Dewald failed to disclose was that he had created the digital avatar using artificial intelligence software, the latest example of AI creeping into the US legal system in potentially troubling ways.

Reached Friday, Dewald, the plaintiff, said he had been overwhelmed by embarrassment at the hearing. He said he had sent the judges a letter of apology shortly afterwards, expressing his deep regret and acknowledging that his actions had “inadvertently misled” the court.

He said he had resorted to using the software after stumbling over his words in previous legal proceedings. Using AI for the presentation, he thought, might ease the pressure he felt in the courtroom.

He said he had planned to make a digital version of himself but had encountered “technical difficulties” in doing so, which prompted him to create a fake person for the recording instead.

“My intent was never to deceive but rather to present my arguments in the most efficient manner possible,” he said in his letter to the judges. “However, I recognize that proper disclosure and transparency must always take precedence.”

A self-described entrepreneur, Dewald was appealing an earlier ruling in a contract dispute with a former employer. He eventually presented an oral argument at the appellate hearing, stammering and taking frequent pauses to regroup and read prepared remarks from his cellphone.

As embarrassed as he might be, Dewald could take some comfort in the fact that actual lawyers have gotten into trouble for using AI in court.

In 2023, a New York lawyer faced severe repercussions after he used ChatGPT to create a legal brief riddled with fake judicial opinions and legal citations. The case showcased the flaws in relying on AI and reverberated throughout the legal trade.

The same year, Michael Cohen, a former lawyer and fixer for President Trump, provided his lawyer with phoney legal citations he had gotten from Google Bard, an AI programme. Cohen ultimately pleaded for mercy from the federal judge presiding over his case, emphasizing that he had not known the generative text service could provide false information.

©️The New York Times Company