*This article references an incident first reported by the Associated Press: Larry Neumeister, “An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren’t having it,” published on April 4, 2025.
Last week, we witnessed an important teachable moment in the evolution of technology in our courtrooms when a self-represented litigant utilized an AI-generated avatar during his presentation at the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division. This incident brings the concerns I raised in my October 2024 article, “The Trojan Horse in the Courtroom: AI Avatars and the Threat of Digital Deception,” from theoretical discussion into the practical realm—albeit in a case where the intentions appear to have been benign. When Theory Meets PracticeWhen I wrote about the Trojan Horse analogy last year, I warned about how recent developments in AI and video conferencing technology had opened new possibilities that could potentially transform courtroom proceedings. I discussed how AI avatars joining video calls represented a new frontier in legal technology—one that required careful consideration. This recent case presents an instructive example. According to reports, the self-represented litigant obtained permission to present a prerecorded video for his oral argument but did not specifically disclose that the video would feature an AI-generated avatar rather than himself. From his subsequent apology and explanation, it appears his intentions were straightforward—he simply wanted to present his arguments more articulately, without the “mumbling, stumbling and tripping over words” that concerned him. However, despite these well-meaning intentions, the judge’s reaction highlights the importance of transparency in technological innovations within our courts. This wasn’t about punishing innovation—it was about ensuring that the court has full information about the technologies being employed in its proceedings. The Practical Limitations of Avatar AdvocacyBeyond questions of disclosure, this incident reveals some practical considerations about technology in courtroom settings. First, the practical reality: oral arguments before appellate courts are not one-way presentations—they are interactive dialogues. Judges interrupt with questions, probe weak points in arguments, and request clarification on specific issues. A prerecorded avatar, no matter how articulate, cannot respond to these unpredictable interactions. The litigant would have eventually needed to step in personally to answer judges’ questions, creating an awkward transition precisely when the intellectual exchange became most critical. Throughout my career, I’ve observed that anything that distracts from the substance of an argument can diminish its effectiveness. When judges focus on the medium rather than the message, the advocate’s purpose is not being served. In this case, the novelty of the technology appeared to draw attention away from the legal arguments being presented. Exploring Potential Applications and Future ImplicationsWhile this incident highlights current limitations of AI avatars in interactive settings, there are specific applications where this technology could benefit our justice system when properly implemented. For instance, in cases where expert testimony exists only in transcript form, an AI avatar could potentially make this information more engaging for jurors than if an attorney simply read it aloud. Similarly, during retrials where witnesses are no longer available, an appropriately disclosed AI presentation could convey their previous testimony in a more natural format. Opening and closing statements present another opportunity. These prepared presentations require precision, with attorneys sometimes concerned about omitting crucial points under pressure. A pre-recorded presentation might ensure these arguments are delivered exactly as intended. Looking toward the future, we should consider how rapidly this technology is evolving. Today’s AI avatars can’t handle unexpected questions, but what about tomorrow’s? We’re already seeing advances in adaptive AI that can respond to limited queries in real-time. As these capabilities grow more sophisticated, we may need to reconsider our assumptions about the limitations of AI representation in interactive settings. Could we eventually face AI advocates capable of genuine legal reasoning and spontaneous responses? Should we ban such AI advocates or put safeguards in place if that becomes possible? These questions deserve thoughtful consideration now, before the technology outpaces our professional guidelines. The key distinction today appears to be interactivity versus prepared delivery. Where real-time responsiveness is essential, current AI avatars have clear limitations. But this line may blur as technology advances, requiring our legal system to continually reassess appropriate boundaries. Striking the Balance: Innovation with IntegrityAs we navigate this new landscape, the path forward requires thoughtful integration of technology guided by clear principles:
The Human Connection in Legal AdvocacyThere’s a fundamental principle worth considering as we explore technology’s role in courtrooms: the unique value of authentic human presence in our justice system. Our legal tradition is built on human interaction—judges assessing arguments in real-time, advocates responding to concerns as they arise, and the subtle nonverbal communication that contributes to understanding. The interactive nature of appellate oral arguments presents particular challenges for pre-recorded presentations. These proceedings typically involve spontaneous questions from the bench and require advocates to adapt their arguments based on judges’ reactions and inquiries. This dynamic exchange is a central feature of how our appellate courts function. In my experience, judges and juries often respond to authenticity in ways that even the most polished technological presentation might not capture. When technology itself becomes the focus of attention rather than the substance of an argument, it can sometimes distract from rather than enhance the communication it was meant to facilitate. Conclusion: Balancing Technology and Humanity in JusticeThis recent incident offers valuable insights even though the litigant’s intentions appear to have been constructive. It demonstrates that as technology advances, we must thoughtfully consider its place in our legal institutions. Looking forward, we face fundamental questions about technology’s role in courtrooms. While AI tools continue to evolve, we should maintain perspective: technology works best when it enhances human capabilities rather than attempting to replace human judgment, presence, or interaction. This experience serves as a meaningful learning opportunity on multiple levels. It shows both the appeal of technological solutions and their current practical limitations in interactive legal settings. Most importantly, it reminds us to consider how innovation can best serve justice while preserving the essential human elements of our judicial process. When we approach technology with both openness to its potential and awareness of its proper boundaries, we honor the true purpose of innovation in our courts: not creating artificial perfection, but enhancing human capabilities in the pursuit of justice. This balanced perspective offers the most promising path forward as we navigate the intersection of technology and justice in the years ahead. Thanks for reading [sch]Legal Tech! Subscribe for free to receive new posts. |
Beyond the Trojan Horse: The Reality of AI Avatars in Courtrooms
Subscribed
