Cyber counsel frustrates (human) judges
The claimant in a New York employment dispute was reportedly given short shrift after attempting to use an AI-generated avatar to argue his case before a court.
According to AP News, Jerome Dewald submitted a video to present his oral argument. But when Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels invited the court to play it, the five-judge bench quickly realised that the counsel introducing Dewald’s case wasn’t a real person — it was an AI-generated avatar.
“May it please the court,” began Dewald’s cyber counsel — a “man” speaking in uncanny tones, “I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of five distinguished justices.”
A baffled Manzanet-Daniels composed herself before questioning Dewald. “Is that counsel for the case?”
“I generated that. That is not a real person,” Dewald replied.
Dewald v. Mass Mutual (begins 19:22)
According to his LinkedIn, Dewald is involved in the AI industry. His venture, Pro Se Pro, uses AI to file and argue court proceedings. Manzanet-Daniels caught on quickly: “You are not going to use this courtroom as a launch for your business, sir”.
It appears from the stream that Dewald had declared himself unable to articulate his case, which was why he had submitted the two videos. The second video was not played.
After being invited to make submissions for five minutes, Dewald is seen putting an earbud in and typing into his phone, before repeating the words spoken by his avatar.
AI continues to throw up strange happenings, disrupting the legal world on this side of the pond as well. One firm is now offering a bonus encouraging lawyers to use AI, whilst a senior judge has encouraged its use — despite noting issues. In March, William Rees-Mogg, a barrister, warned LinkedIn about risks as litigants-in-person turn to ChatGPT for advice and drafting. Perhaps he’ll be facing his learned friend robo-barrister of cyber counsel in the future.
(
(
