NEW YORK COURT HALTS HEARING AFTER A LAWYER USES HIS AI AVATAR TO PRESENT ARGUMENTS : WHAT HAPPENED NEXT WILL SHOCK YOU!! (13. 04. 2025)

The picture is taken from the YouTube Video of the hearing, uploaded by UInterview.

On 26th March, 2025, a courtroom in New York turned tense when a 74-year-old man appeared before a judge “virtually” but let an AI-generated video avatar do the talking. What followed was a sharp exchange with the bench, a viral video, and a deeper debate about whether AI has any place in the courtroom.

A Younger Voice, But Not a Human One

Jerome Dewald, a retired man representing himself in an employment-related appeal, submitted a video to the court. The video featured a clean-cut, younger-looking man who began speaking confidently on Dewald’s behalf. But there was a catch: the man in the video wasn’t real. It was “Jim,” an avatar created with the help of an AI tool called Tavus.

Within seconds, Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels interrupted the proceedings, asking who the person in the video was. Dewald admitted, “I generated that. That is not a real person.”

 

The Judge Was Not Amused

The reaction from the bench was immediate and blunt. Justice Manzanet-Daniels told Dewald, “I don’t appreciate being misled.” She questioned why he hadn’t disclosed this information earlier, and why he thought this approach was acceptable. “You’re not going to use this courtroom as a launch for your business,” she added, referring to Dewald’s AI legal startup.

The hearing was halted on the spot.

 

Why He Did It?

In a follow-up statement and an apology letter to the court, Dewald explained that he didn’t intend to deceive anyone. He said speaking for extended periods was difficult for him and that the avatar was a way to clearly present his arguments. He also clarified that he wasn’t using the courtroom as a demo for his company.

Despite his apology, the incident raised bigger questions that go beyond one man’s legal battle.

 

Can AI Be a Lawyer?

While many tech tools have found their way into legal practice—automated research, contract review, and even virtual hearings—using a computer-generated person to speak on your behalf is still way outside the norm.

Legal experts have pointed out that courts rely on accountability. A person giving testimony or presenting an argument can be questioned, corrected, or even penalized. An AI avatar? Not so much. Without a clear legal framework, judges may be left guessing who is actually speaking—and whether they even exist.

There’s also the concern of authenticity. Judges want to hear from the actual party in interest—especially when they’re representing themselves—not a polished AI version made to seem more articulate or convincing.

 

How does the Interact Reacts?

Once footage from the courtroom made its way online, the story quickly went viral. Many viewers were stunned, amused, or simply confused. Some applauded Dewald’s creativity; others said it bordered on disrespect.

On talk shows and news segments, legal commentators weighed in. In a segment with NewsNation’s Ashleigh Banfield, analysts called it a “wake-up call” for the courts. As one guest put it, “Just because AI can do something doesn’t mean it should.”

 

What Happens Next?

This case didn’t result in any formal penalties against Dewald, but it has opened the door to discussions about what role AI should play in real-world legal systems.

Should AI be allowed in courtrooms at all? If yes, under what rules? What happens if an AI-generated avatar gives misleading information or says something that wasn’t intended by the person it represents?

These are questions courts may have to answer sooner than expected.

 

Final Thoughts

The incident in the New York courtroom is more than just a viral moment, it’s a sign of the times. As AI tools become more available, people will continue to test how far they can go with them. But in the legal world, where facts, identity, and accountability matter, the lines are still being drawn.

 

Watch the hearing here

 

References: