AI-Generated Lawyer Stuns New York Judges in Courtroom Controversy

An unpleasant courtroom incident occurred on March 26, 2025, as a panel of judges in New York were rattled by the sight of an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated avatar representing a plaintiff's attorney. The incident unfolded during a courtroom appearance where the use of this AI-generated figure caused a wave of disbelief among the judges.

AI-generated attorney outrages judge

The plaintiff, Jerome Dewald, was embroiled in an employment dispute and approached the stand of the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division's First Judicial Department, caught amidst an unexpected court spectacle. Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, the presiding judge, initiated the proceedings, stating, "The appellant has submitted a video for his argument," before instructing the court to watch the video presentation.

The courtroom was soon filled with the image of a young man, sharply dressed in a button-down shirt and sitting in what appeared to be a home office, addressing the panel in a well-rehearsed manner.

However, the illusion was shattered as the presiding judge, Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, swiftly interrupted the video, casting doubt on the authenticity of the purported attorney's presence. "Hold on," she exclaimed, questioning, "Is that counsel for the case?"

Revelation of Deception

In a shocking revelation, Dewald confirmed that the figure on the screen was, indeed, his representative, only to add, "I generated that. That's not a real person." The revelation prompted immediate discontent from the judges, who expressed their disapproval of Dewald's unconventional presentation choice.

Justice Manzanet-Daniels, visibly taken aback, responded, "It would have been nice to know that when you made your application," questioning the transparency of Dewald's approach, further emphasizing the importance of forthright communication with the court.

Judicial Discontent

The judges were reportedly incensed by the plaintiff's attorney's deception, leading to a stern reprimand from the bench. "The court was really upset about it," Dewald later recounted, reflecting on the judges intense discontent towards his unorthodox approach.

In the aftermath of the courtroom spectacle, Dewald issued a letter of apology to the court, attempting to clarify his intentions, explaining that he was not represented by a lawyer in the case and denied any intention to deceive the court.

Despite Dewald's attempts to clarify his choices, the judges showed disdain towards the unorthodox courtroom presentation, leading to a retrospective examination of his actions.

A Surprising Development in Legal Practices

The judges were reportedly incensed by "the deception" employed in the courtroom, leading to a stern reprimand from the bench. "The court was really upset about it," Dewald later recounted, reflecting on the judges' intense discontent towards his unorthodox approach.

In the aftermath of the courtroom spectacle, Dewald issued a letter of apology to the court, attempting to clarify his intentions, explaining that he was not represented by a lawyer in the case and denied any intention to deceive the court.

Despite Dewald's attempts to clarify his choices, the judges showed disdain towards the unorthodox courtroom presentation, leading to a retrospective examination of his actions.