Elderly man uses AI-generated “lawyer” in court, judge orders video stopped

A courtroom encounter with an AI-generated “lawyer” has sparked controversy in the New York judicial system, highlighting the growing tension between artificial intelligence adoption and legal ethics. The incident raises significant questions about transparency, deception, and the appropriate boundaries for AI use in formal legal proceedings, especially as the technology becomes more convincingly human-like.

The big picture: An elderly man representing himself in a New York appellate court attempted to present arguments through an AI-generated video avatar without disclosing its artificial nature.

• Jerome Dewald, 74, who was representing himself in a dispute with a former employer, began playing a prerecorded video featuring what appeared to be a younger man in professional attire standing before a blurred background.
• When questioned by confused Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels about the identity of the person in the video, Dewald admitted, “I generated that. That is not a real person.”

Why this matters: The incident represents one of the first documented cases of AI misrepresentation in a formal courtroom setting, potentially establishing precedent for how courts will handle AI-generated content.

• The judge’s immediate negative reaction demonstrates the judicial system’s concern about transparency when artificial intelligence is used in official legal proceedings.

Reading between the lines: The judge’s strong reaction suggests courts will likely establish strict disclosure requirements for AI-generated content in legal proceedings.

• Justice Manzanet-Daniels expressed clear displeasure, stating “I don’t appreciate being misled” before ordering the video to be turned off.
• The incident highlights how realistic AI-generated content can potentially deceive even experienced legal professionals when introduced without proper disclosure.

Implications: This case foreshadows the emerging challenges courts will face as increasingly sophisticated AI tools become accessible to litigants, especially those representing themselves.

• Courts may need to develop explicit rules regarding AI-generated content, potentially requiring advance disclosure and authentication.
• The incident raises questions about whether self-represented litigants might use AI to appear more polished or professional than they actually are, potentially creating an unfair advantage.