Latest news with #JeromeDewald
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Man who used AI lawyer explains why he did so after judge got angry
(NewsNation) — A cancer survivor's attempt to use an AI-generated avatar during a New York appeals court hearing was quickly shut down by a judge last month, highlighting tensions as new technology enters courtrooms. Jerome Dewald, who experienced throat cancer 25 years ago, told NewsNation he sought to use the AI avatar because his 'throat tends to give out' during extended speaking, making articulation difficult. The avatar would have delivered his prepared arguments without the physical limitations he faces. 'I got advanced approval for the video,' Dewald said Tuesday on NewsNation's 'Banfield' about the March 26 hearing. 'I intended to use a replica of myself, but I had some technical difficulties getting it completed.' Lori Vallow uses same manipulation tactics in courtroom: Cousin Dewald, representing himself in an employment dispute before the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division's First Judicial Department, said he was also having stage fright. 'Then there's the pressure and the intimidation that a pro se feels in the courtroom by himself,' he said, referring to individuals who represent themselves without an attorney. Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels abruptly halted the presentation when she realized the person on the screen wasn't real. The avatar, a young man with styled hair wearing a button-down shirt and sweater, had begun with 'May it please the court. I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of five distinguished justices.' 'I don't appreciate being misled,' Manzanet-Daniels told Dewald before allowing him to continue his arguments personally. She also said Dewald was attempting to 'launch his business' in the courtroom, which he later clarified as 'an innocent mistake.' Cassie Ventura to be named at Diddy's trial despite NDA 'I'm not really promoting a business at all,' Dewald said. Dewald maintains he received prior approval for his presentation method, though not specifically for an AI-generated speaker. 'I had some technical difficulties getting it completed. It was the first time we ever tried it, a very new technology,' he told NewsNation. Instead of his own likeness, Dewald used a generic avatar he referred to as 'James,' joking that the digital representation was 'much more handsome than I am.' Following the hearing, Dewald sent a letter of apology to the court. Mother of man rescued from Connecticut 'House of Horrors': 'I love you' 'I trust that the panel would not be influenced by this too much,' he said. 'I noticed that the Presiding Justice was the one who shut the TV up. Later when I was giving the argument, she acted as though she maybe felt she had been a little bit harsh with me.' The incident adds to a growing list of AI-related complications in legal settings. In June 2023, two attorneys and a law firm were each fined $5,000 by a federal judge after using an AI tool that cited fictitious legal cases. Later that year, Michael Cohen, former personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, submitted legal papers containing AI-invented court rulings. Dewald's employment dispute case remained pending before the appeals court as of press time. He said a ruling might be expected in approximately four weeks. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
08-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
AI Avatars Replacing Human Lawyers In Court? Recent Case Says Not So Fast
A robot hand with the letter AI and a lady justice. In what might be the most unusual courtroom scene of 2025 so far, a New York appeals court recently encountered something unprecedented when a litigant attempted to have an artificial intelligence avatar present oral arguments on his behalf, raising serious questions about the boundaries of AI in judicial proceedings, the AP reports. The incident occurred on Mar. 26 in the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division's First Judicial Department, where Jerome Dewald, a plaintiff representing himself in an employment dispute against MassMutual Metro, was scheduled to present arguments. Instead of appearing personally, Dewald submitted what was initially described as a video presentation. What happened next left the judicial panel visibly stunned. "The appellant has submitted a video for his argument," announced Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, before a youthful-looking man with styled hair, dressed in a button-down shirt and sweater, appeared on screen. This was no pre-recorded video of Dewald himself, but rather a completely AI-generated avatar programmed to deliver his legal arguments. The judges quickly realized they were not addressing a human being and were notably displeased by the unexpected digital stand-in. The justices had taken special accommodations for what they believed would be an audio-visual presentation from a pro se litigant, even taking the matter out of turn to address technical requirements. Finding themselves face to face with an AI construct instead came as an unwelcome surprise. According to court observers, the avatar managed only a few moments of speaking time, beginning with traditional courtroom pleasantries before the judges intervened. One judge pointedly noted that "it would have been nice to know that" Dewald planned to use an AI representation when making his application to the court. This case represents an escalation in the ongoing integration of artificial intelligence into legal processes. While AI tools have become increasingly common for legal research and document drafting, Dewald's attempt to deploy an avatar for direct court representation crosses into largely uncharted territory. Dewald himself is reportedly no stranger to the intersection of AI and law. He is described as a pioneer in AI and programming with a diverse background spanning computer science, psychology, and entrepreneurship. He founded ProSe Pro, an AI tool designed to assist unrepresented litigants navigate the legal system more effectively. Legal experts point out several problems with using AI avatars for courtroom advocacy. As one commentator noted, if a self-represented litigant fears they lack sufficient legal knowledge, having an AI deliver arguments would simply be "garbage in, garbage out" in terms of legal reasoning. More fundamentally, oral arguments involve dynamic interaction between advocates and judges, with questions often guiding and clarifying the legal issues at stake. An avatar lacks the ability to respond meaningfully to unexpected inquiries or adjust arguments based on judicial feedback. This incident highlights the tension between technological innovation and courtroom tradition. While digital tools continue to transform many aspects of legal practice, the judiciary appears to be drawing a clear line when it comes to who or what can address the court directly. Legal tech entrepreneurs and AI developers, take note: tools that assist human lawyers may find acceptance, but attempts to replace human advocacy entirely will likely face significant resistance from the bench. The court ultimately required Dewald to make his arguments personally, reinforcing the principle that human representation remains fundamental to our judicial process, at least for now.
