New York Judge Upset As 74-Year-Old Man Uses AI Lawyer Midhearing

In partnership with

Grow smarter: Reallocate ad spend, boost ROAS with affiliates

Ad costs are rising. Clicks aren’t converting like they used to. And ROAS? It’s all over the place.

Here’s the thing: ad spend will always be part of your mix. But it doesn’t have to be your only lever.

Levanta’s Affiliate Shift Calculator helps you model what could happen if you reallocated a portion of your ad budget into affiliate marketing—a channel that only charges when it drives actual results.

It’s not a generic tool. Your scenario is reviewed by an affiliate expert and built around your real inputs.

You’ll get a custom forecast with projected ROAS, revenue lift, and estimated efficiency—delivered

straight to your inbox, fast.

It’s free to try, takes just two minutes to get started, and could shift the way you grow.

Get My Custom Forecast

Key Takeaways

• A 74-year-old man named Jerome Dewald caused a stir in a New York courtroom when he attempted to use an AI-generated avatar to present his legal arguments in an employment dispute.

• Dewald is a plaintiff representing himself (pro se) in an employment dispute, meaning he had no lawyer and was handling his own case.

• Dewald had received prior court approval to play a prerecorded video to assist with his argument, as he had difficulty speaking at length. However, he did not disclose that the video would feature an AI-generated figure rather than himself or a real person.

Apparently, artificial intelligence (AI) is also now appearing in the legal work, but it is not widely accepted just yet.

Recently, a 74-year-old man named Jerome Dewald has caused a legal stir after using an AI-generated lawyer. The judge at a New York appellate court had strong words for the plaintiff after he tried to use the technology to argue his employment dispute case.

A panel of five judges was ready to hear his case when he was asked to play a video to make his argument. However, one of the judges snapped after realizing the speaker was not real. “It would have been nice to know that when you made your application,” Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels said.

Jerome Dewald admitted he had created the avatar himself because he did not have a lawyer and was representing himself, but the court did not take it lightly and continued to scold the plaintiff:

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.

For context, Dewald had obtained court permission to play a prerecorded video to aid in presenting his argument due to his difficulty speaking. However, he failed to disclose that the video would feature an AI-generated figure instead of himself or another real person.

AI Impacting The Practice Of Law

Jerome Dewald’s courtroom stunt is just the latest example of how AI is beginning to disrupt the legal profession. From tools that generate legal documents to AI models capable of mimicking lawyers, the legal system faces increasing pressure to adapt.

Notably, this is not the first time AI has made headlines in a courtroom. Recent cases have revealed lawyers submitting briefs that include AI-generated, fictitious case law—a sign of both the potential and the pitfalls of leaning too heavily on these tools.

Legal experts warn that AI could lead to ethical violations, misrepresentation, and erosion of trust in the judicial process without proper oversight. Yet, some see promise. If used responsibly, AI could help streamline case research, assist self-represented litigants, or support judicial decision-making.

In Dewald’s case, though controversial, may serve as a turning point in the ongoing conversation about where AI fits in the justice system. It now raises some thought-provoking questions like (A) Who gets to speak in court? (B) Can a digital avatar represent a person? And most importantly, (C) How much AI is too much in a courtroom?

Final Thoughts

Those keeping a close eye on AI advancements say Dewald’s move was inevitable and that AI is poised to play a bigger role in the legal system. Still, they argue that the courts are not yet equipped to handle this shift.

Policy experts add that the changes ahead go beyond AI representing clients—judges may soon need to weigh evidence produced by artificial intelligence as well.

Although Dewald’s attempt to use an AI-generated lawyer was cut short, many believe it is only the beginning of AI’s presence in the courtroom.

Overall, it is a reminder that while courts explore tech, they still expect transparency and decorum.