You’ve heard of lawyers using AI to do their research or even draft briefs, but sending an AI Avatar to deliver the oral argument is a new one.
And it’s not a popular one with the judges!
In Dewald v. MassMutual Metro, the Appellate Division, First Department expected some sort of audio-visual presentation as part of the pro se litigant’s argument. It’s not exactly standard procedure, but the justices were willing to accommodate an unrepresented party. The panel even took the matter out of turn to accommodate the relevant IT issues.
That’s when they were treated to a few seconds of this generic tech bro robot “representing” the appellant.
Giving serious “LinkedIn Hustle Post” vibes. Aside from everything else, why use an avatar in a quarter zip instead of something at least passably courtroom appropriate? They make AI slop in suits — we know that from the Arizona court system’s in-house press nonsense.
Within seconds of Clarence D-AI-rrow’s argument, the court cut it off and asked what was up and the actual attorney explained, “I generated that. That is not a real person.”
No kidding. The video filed a pro hac motion from Uncanny Valley.
My first instinct — charitable observer that I am — was that this was an accessibility issue, opening up the space for a lawyer who might have a condition limiting their ability to present themselves. This notion is quickly dashed by the justices:
You have appeared before this court and been able to testify verbally in the past. You have gone to my clerk’s office and held verbal conversations with our staff for over 30 minutes. Okay, I don’t appreciate being misled so either you are suffering from an ailment that prevents you from being able to articulate or you don’t, you are not going to use this courtroom as a launch for your business, sir. So if you are able to shut that off… If you want to have oral argument time, you may stand up and give it to me, you have five minutes, your time has started.
At that point, the pro se litigant seemed to read what would’ve been the AI’s script.
Look, pro se litigants face a lot of challenges, but turning over the argument to a bot seems to exacerbate those struggles. If the pro se fears they don’t know enough about the law, then the script is going to be garbage in, garbage out. It’s much better to try to make the argument in person and give the judges an opportunity to ask questions. They’ll likely help advance the case better by leading the discussion anyway.
Hey, at least it wasn’t a cat.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.