See judge shut down argument from AI avatar in court

CNN - Apr 10th, 2025

A judge on a New York state appeals court expressed outrage when a plaintiff attempted to use an AI-generated avatar to argue his case. The plaintiff, who was not represented by a lawyer, hoped that an AI avatar would present a polished and effective argument in his stead. This unprecedented move raised questions about the role and acceptance of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings, highlighting the challenges of integrating AI into traditional courtrooms.

The incident underscores the growing tension between technological advancements and established legal practices. As AI continues to develop and permeate various sectors, the legal system faces the challenge of adapting to these changes while maintaining the integrity of legal processes. This case may prompt discussions about the potential for AI in legal advocacy and the need for clear regulations and guidelines regarding its use in courtrooms. The situation also brings attention to the broader implications of AI in professional fields and the potential reshaping of roles traditionally held by humans.

Artificial Intelligence Ai Generated Avatar New York State Appeals Court Legal Technology Courtroom Procedures

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents an intriguing and timely topic about the use of AI in a courtroom setting, capturing public interest with its novelty. However, it falls short in providing a balanced perspective and lacks depth in its analysis. The story's accuracy is supported by reliable sources, but it could benefit from more detailed information and expert viewpoints to enhance its impact and engagement. Overall, the article is clear and readable but would gain from increased transparency and a broader exploration of the ethical and legal implications of AI in the legal field.

Accuracy

The story's main claim that a plaintiff tried to use an AI-generated avatar in a New York state appeals court is accurate. The plaintiff, Jerome Dewald, indeed attempted this, as verified by multiple sources. The judge's reaction, described as outraged, aligns with reports that Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels expressed disapproval. However, the story lacks specific details, such as the name of the AI program used or the context of the legal case, which could enhance its accuracy. Overall, the story is truthful but could benefit from more precise details and context.

Balance

The article presents a single perspective, primarily focusing on the judge's reaction and the plaintiff's actions. It lacks viewpoints from legal experts or AI ethicists who could provide insight into the implications of using AI in courtrooms. The absence of these perspectives results in a somewhat unbalanced narrative, as it doesn't explore the broader context or potential benefits and drawbacks of AI in legal settings.

Clarity

The story is clearly written and easy to understand, with a straightforward narrative. The language is neutral, and the structure allows readers to follow the events logically. However, the lack of detailed context and background information on AI technology in legal settings may leave readers with unanswered questions.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources, including direct quotes from court proceedings. However, it doesn't attribute information to specific individuals or organizations, such as legal experts or AI developers, which could strengthen the report's reliability. The lack of diverse sources limits the depth of the analysis and the understanding of the issue.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the methodology behind the AI avatar's use or the specific circumstances of the court case. It also lacks information on potential conflicts of interest or biases in reporting. Transparency could be improved by providing more context about the AI technology and the legal framework governing its use in courtrooms.