Don’t Get Used to Seeing AI Lawyers in the Courtroom Last week, in a New York appellate court, a self-proclaimed plaintiff named Jerome Dewald attempted to use an AI-generated virtual avatar named James to represent himself. However, the judge quickly dismissed this unusual move. Dewald, a 74-year-old Manhattan resident, played a video of James during a video hearing on March 26, aiming to present his case regarding a contractual dispute through the avatar. Judge Sallie Manzanet-Daniels spotted the irregularity within minutes of the video's playback and questioned Dewald about the identity of the person in the recording. Once she learned that James was a virtual figure created using the AI video generation platform Tavus, she halted the video and demanded that Dewald present his case in person. Dewald had failed to disclose that the figure in the video was not an actual attorney, which the judge deemed unacceptable. Dewald told the media that he originally intended to make the avatar look like himself but opted for James due to technical issues. His goal was to better articulate his arguments and potentially streamline the court proceedings. However, the attempt backfired, and Dewald ultimately had to speak for himself. After the hearing, he penned an apology letter to the judge, stressing that he never intended to deceive anyone and will be more transparent in the future. This is the first known instance in the United States of someone trying to use an AI-generated avatar to present their case in court. However, as AI technology continues to advance, similar attempts may become more frequent. Multiple legal experts have indicated that individuals representing themselves in court might try to use AI tools, but such efforts are likely to face strong resistance from judges. Mark Bartholomew, a professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law, believes that while AI technology may offer more tools for self-represented litigants, courts are unlikely to permit AI avatars in the foreseeable future. The primary concern is the "hallucination" problem—where AI systems generate information that does not exist. Daniel Shin, the Associate Director of Research at the Center for Legal and Court Technology at William & Mary Law School, noted that courts are already requiring parties to disclose whether they have used AI tools in preparing documents. Despite these concerns, many Americans find themselves unable to afford or secure an attorney for civil cases, making AI models a potentially important alternative for legal advice. According to Professor Susan深受影响 Surden, the guidance provided by AI tools like ChatGPT, while not as reliable as professional legal counsel, is often more accurate than advice from friends, family, or personal guesses. In summary, while AI technology offers significant advantages in certain areas, its use in courtrooms must be approached with caution. Legal experts agree that stricter regulatory measures for AI applications in court are likely in the future, to ensure the integrity and transparency of judicial processes. Additionally, the legal community needs to establish clearer guidelines to help people understand the proper and ethical use of AI tools. James Gatto, a partner at the law firm Sheppard Mullin, pointed out that the use of AI tools in the legal field is increasing, but direct representation through virtual avatars remains a significant hurdle. He emphasized that AI tools are primarily used for information retrieval and initial advice, rather than for direct legal arguments. As technology evolves, more self-represented litigants may attempt to leverage AI tools to aid their cases, but the judges' attitudes and court rules will play a crucial role in shaping this trend. While AI has shown great potential in enhancing legal services, it is crucial to use it carefully to prevent inaccuracies and maintain the integrity of legal proceedings.