In a move that has ignited debate about the role of artificial intelligence in the legal system, a New York courtroom witnessed an unprecedented event recently: an attempt to present arguments using an AI avatar. While the effort was quickly shut down by the presiding judge, the incident has sparked a broader conversation about the future of AI in law, raising questions about access to justice, ethical considerations, and the very nature of legal representation.
The incident unfolded in late March at the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division's First Judicial Department. Jerome Dewald, a plaintiff representing himself in an employment dispute, sought to present his oral arguments via a video featuring an AI-generated avatar. The avatar, a smiling, youthful-looking man, began with traditional courtroom formalities before the judges intervened, visibly displeased. Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels questioned Dewald about the avatar, noting that it would have been "nice to know" about the AI representation beforehand. Another judge firmly stated, "I don't appreciate being misled…you are not going to use this courtroom as a launch for your business, sir."
Dewald later explained that he used the AI avatar because he feared he would stumble or mumble if he represented himself, hoping the avatar would deliver his arguments more eloquently. He also claimed he had sought permission to use a pre-recorded video, but the court was unprepared for an artificially generated image. However, the judges were having none of it, quickly cutting off the presentation.
This event is the latest in a string of instances highlighting AI's awkward, yet persistent, entrance into the legal arena. In 2023, lawyers faced sanctions for citing nonexistent cases generated by AI, underscoring the risks of relying on these tools without proper oversight. Conversely, some courts are exploring AI's potential to enhance public access to legal information. For instance, the Arizona Supreme Court has introduced AI avatars to summarize court rulings, aiming to increase transparency.
Legal experts are divided on the implications of AI in the courtroom. On one hand, AI could potentially democratize access to justice by providing affordable legal assistance to those who cannot afford traditional representation. AI-powered tools can assist with legal research, document drafting, and even provide preliminary legal advice. Dewald, who operates a startup aimed at helping unrepresented litigants, believes AI empowers individuals by giving them a voice they might not otherwise have.
However, significant limitations and ethical concerns remain. The use of AI-generated evidence, virtual representations, and AI-driven analysis raises complex questions about accuracy, bias, and fairness. Critics argue that relying on AI avatars for courtroom advocacy could lead to "garbage in, garbage out" scenarios, where flawed legal reasoning is amplified by technology. Furthermore, oral arguments require dynamic interaction and the ability to respond to judicial inquiries, something an avatar cannot realistically provide.
The New York State Bar Association has already addressed the ethical use of AI in legal practice, emphasizing the importance of lawyer competence, client confidentiality, and independent professional judgment. These guidelines stress that AI should augment, not replace, a lawyer's judgment and that lawyers must understand the risks and benefits of using AI tools. They also highlight the need for safeguards to protect client information when using AI technologies. In June 2024, New York established an Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, tasked with examining AI's use in the court system and recommending appropriate protections to ensure its safe, responsible, and effective implementation.
As AI technology continues to evolve, the legal system faces the challenge of adapting to its potential while mitigating its risks. The incident in the New York courtroom serves as a stark reminder of the complexities involved in integrating AI into legal proceedings and the need for careful consideration of its ethical and practical implications.
