April 15, 2025

By: Jamie Davila, Esq.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the ability to replace being able to talk to a live person in specialized professions. One specialized profession that cannot be replaced with AI (at least for now!) is an attorney. Although the legal profession is slowly incorporating AI into everyday legal tasks, it will not replace the need for a live attorney to represent you in court.

On March 26, 2025, a panel of Judges from the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department were presiding over a matter pertaining to the Plaintiff, Jerome Dewald, in an employment dispute. Mr. Dewald was appealing against an earlier ruling of a contract dispute with his former employer.  Mr. Dewald had previously appeared before the Court and was able to represent himself before the panel of Judges. During this hearing, Mr. Dewald decided to submit a video for his argument. On the video, a youthful looking man, smiling, with a bottom-down shirt and sweater appeared. The man on the video began to speak and was promptly stopped by one of the Judges. When asked whether the man on the video was counsel for the case, Mr. Dewald admitted that the man in the video was not a real person and that it was in fact a generated person that would be making oral arguments on Mr. Dewald’s behalf.[1]

The Judge expressed that they did not appreciate being misled and were expecting a live person in the video. When probed further as to why Mr. Dewald decided to use the AI generated video, he explained that he resorted to using the software because he did not have an attorney to represent him, and he felt that the AI avatar would better present his argument due to the fact that he had previously stumbled over his words in prior legal proceedings. After questioning by the Judge, and an apology to the court, he was allowed to present an oral argument at the appellate hearing.

During his presentation, Mr. Dewald was stuttering, taking frequent pauses, and reading prepared words from his cell phone.  Despite this, it was beyond evident that the Judges preferred this human interaction as opposed to a generated AI tool. Although Mr. Dewald is the most recent case that documents the uses of AI in the legal field going array, in previous years, AI has tried to make its breakthrough into the legal system in many forms but has remained largely unsuccessful in the judicial system.  There have been cases appearing where lawyers used AI to draft legal briefs that subsequently had citations to cases that did not exist or were no longer good law. In those situations, the lawyers had to appear on an Order to Show Cause why they should not be sanctioned.

With the rise of Chat GPT and AI generative programs and their uses to better understand the law and the court proceedings; it is highly advised not to use or rely on Chat GPT or other similar AI generative systems as a valid form of seeking accurate legal advice and legal representation.

If you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek out an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-two (22) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice regarding your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.

 [1] Larry Neumeister, An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The Judges weren’t having it; April 4, 2025; https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-ai-courts-nyc-5c97cba3f3757d9ab3c2e5840127f765 (last seen on April 14, 2025)>