On March 26, 2025, a unique and controversial moment unfolded inside the New York State Supreme Court. Jerom Dewald, involved in an employment-related legal case, shocked the courtroom when he opted to let an Artificial Intelligence avatar speak on his behalf instead of addressing the judges himself.
Rather than taking the podium to deliver his own oral arguments, Dewald chose to project a pre-recorded video of an AI-generated avatar onto the courtroom screen. The digital figure was a light-skinned man with blonde hair—entirely computer-created and not modeled after Dewald himself. The move quickly drew intense criticism and confusion from the panel of judges, halting the proceedings within seconds.
The Judge’s Swift Reaction
Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, one of five judges presiding over the case, immediately intervened as the video began. Visibly startled and displeased, she instructed the courtroom staff to stop the video. Addressing Dewald directly, the judge expressed her outrage over the unexpected presentation.
In her words, Dewald had not been transparent in his communications with the court. Although he had reportedly asked in advance for permission to show a video as part of his opening statement, he had failed to disclose that the video would be presented by an AI avatar rather than by himself.
“This is misleading,” Justice Manzanet-Daniels remarked, making it clear that she felt blindsided by Dewald’s choice to use AI in place of a personal appearance. She questioned whether Dewald truly had difficulty speaking in public, pointing out that he had successfully addressed the court in previous proceedings.
Why the AI Avatar?
Dewald later explained that his motivation stemmed from a personal challenge—he claimed to struggle with clear speech, often mumbling during formal presentations. By using an AI-generated avatar, he hoped to ensure his message was delivered smoothly and effectively.
Initially, he intended to create a digital version of himself, but time constraints led him to use a generic avatar instead. The tech support for this endeavor reportedly came from a San Francisco-based company specializing in AI avatars and synthetic media.
However, Dewald’s intentions—however genuine—were overshadowed by the controversy surrounding the surprise use of AI in such a formal legal context. The courtroom, after all, is governed by strict protocols and long-established traditions that demand transparency and authenticity from all participants.
Courtroom Etiquette vs. Technological Innovation
The event sparked a broader conversation about the role of Artificial Intelligence in legal settings. While AI is already used in behind-the-scenes legal work—such as document review, predictive analytics, and case research—the use of avatars or synthetic speakers in place of human participants in live court sessions remains largely uncharted territory.
Justice Manzanet-Daniels made it clear that Dewald’s attempt was not welcome. She further accused him of trying to use the courtroom as a publicity stunt for a business venture focused on AI tools. “This is not a platform to promote your startup,” she warned.
The accusation hinted at a possible ulterior motive behind Dewald’s AI presentation—that the incident was meant to generate buzz for a future enterprise rather than to address a personal speech limitation. Dewald denied this interpretation but acknowledged that the courtroom experience was more intense than he had anticipated.
The Aftermath and Apology
In the days following the hearing, Dewald issued a formal apology to the court. Speaking to the Associated Press, he admitted that the reaction was harsher than he expected, and he now understood the judges’ frustration.
“They tore into me,” Dewald said. “I didn’t mean any harm, but I guess I underestimated how seriously the court would take it.”
His apology aimed to mend the strained relationship with the court, but the incident has already set off a flurry of debates in legal and tech communities alike about the future of AI in judicial proceedings.
Implications for the Legal Industry
This case raises critical questions about how far AI should be allowed to go in high-stakes environments like courtrooms. Could AI avatars ever be accepted in place of real human testimonies? What standards of disclosure should be applied when AI tools are used in court? These are some of the questions being asked in the aftermath of Dewald’s failed experiment.
Legal scholars point out that while AI has tremendous potential to assist with administrative and analytical tasks, its role in live courtrooms—especially in representing litigants or speaking on their behalf—must be carefully regulated. Transparency, human accountability, and the ability to question witnesses or speakers in real time are foundational principles of courtroom procedure.
A Glimpse Into the Future?
Despite the backlash, some see this event as a sign of what may come. As AI technology continues to evolve, so too will attempts to integrate it into unexpected areas—including public institutions like courts. Whether or not this integration is successful will likely depend on clear rules, ethical standards, and open communication between technology users and judicial authorities.
Experts note that this may not be the last time a litigant attempts to use AI in court. However, any future efforts will need to be much more transparent and receive full approval in advance to avoid the kind of disruption seen in Dewald’s case.
Conclusion
Jerom Dewald’s bold move to let an AI avatar speak for him in front of the New York State Supreme Court ended in embarrassment and strong judicial pushback. While his intentions may have been rooted in a desire for clarity and professionalism, his failure to communicate the full scope of his plan backfired spectacularly.
The incident serves as a cautionary tale for anyone looking to introduce emerging technologies into traditional systems. Innovation must be balanced with respect for institutional norms, pecially in settings as formal and consequential as a courtroom.
As technology and law continue to intersect in unexpected ways, Dewald’s case will likely be remembered as one of the first high-profile examples of the challenges ahead. Whether it becomes a turning point or simply a warning sign remains to be seen.
.png)
.png)
0 Comments