In the recent Supreme Court proceeding, Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma asked a lawyer virtually appearing for the hearing whether he was real. The advocate replied, “Milord, I am real.” The SC judges were referring to the case at the New York court where a man was represented by an AI advocate.

Here’s what transpired: At the New York appeals court, 74-year-old Jerome Dewald was arguing without solicitors. The same was being broadcast live on the YouTube channels of the Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the state of New York.

During the hearing, the appellant submitted a video that, when played, raised alarm. The very suave young man in the clip began, “May it please the court? I come here today, a humble pro se, before a panel of five distinguished justices.”

The speech of the person on the video was interrupted by Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, who asked Dewald if the individual on the video was counsel. Dewald clarified that the person was not real, to which the courtroom was bemused. Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniel remarked, “Shut that off. I don’t appreciate being misled.”

Dewald got the AI avatar to speak on his behalf to represent his case to the employment lawyer more efficiently as he “stumbled a lot in earlier hearings.”

However, the man regrets that he should have been transparent about the digital solicitor.

In fact, AI is disrupting the litigation world. But while AI for legal professionals can't replace the need for attorneys to exercise their judgment and utilize their experience, it can support data-driven decision making and make legal research and writing tasks more efficient.

The Supreme Court in New Delhi had witnessed a bizarre moment when the judges confused the lawyer, who appeared through a video conference, for an artificial intelligence. As a lawyer appeared before the bench via video conferencing, justice BV Nagarathna asked, "Are you real?"

The advocate responded saying, "I can assure you Milord I am real", as quoted by Bar and Bench. The exchange comes in the wake of reports from New York about an AI-generated entity making an appearance in court proceedings.

"There was a news today that a person made an AI person appear before the court and argue a case.. so, are you the same?" justice SC Sharma said, citing the New York incident.

A 74-year-old man representing himself before a New York appellate court stunned judges by using an AI-generated avatar to deliver part of his argument.

Jerome Dewald appeared before a panel of judges from the appellate division’s first judicial department seeking to overturn a lower court's ruling in a dispute with a former employer.

Though not a licensed attorney, Dewald was allowed to present a prerecorded video in support of his argument.

The video, however, featured a much younger-looking man wearing a collared shirt and beige sweater, speaking against a blurred virtual background. The judges were quick to express confusion. “That is not a real person,” Dewald replied, adding, “I generated that.”

The revelation drew an immediate rebuke from the judge, who said, “I don’t appreciate being misled.”

Thus, the founder of an AI startup who attempted to use an artificially generated avatar to argue his case in court has been scolded by a judge for the stunt. The avatar – its appearance and voice created by software – appeared on behalf of Jerome Dewald, the plaintiff in an employment dispute with insurance firm MassMutual Metro New York, at a March 26 hearing before the US state's supreme court appellate division.

During oral arguments, Dewald asked for a video to be played depicting a man in a V-neck sweater to the five-judge panel. The video opened: "Now may it please the court, I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of five distinguished justices…" A pro se being someone representing themselves.

Confused by the unknown speaker, one of the judges, Associate Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, immediately interrupted to ask who was addressing the court. "Is this … hold on? Is that counsel for the case?"

"That? I generated that," replied Dewald, who was physically sitting before the panel of judges in the hearing.

"I'm sorry?" the judge said.

"I generated that," Dewald reiterated. "That is not a real person."

"Okay," the judge snapped. "It would have been nice to know that when you made your application. You did not tell me that, sir."

That application being Dewald's request to play a video arguing his case, as according to him a medical condition had left the entrepreneur unable to easily address the court verbally in person at length. The panel was not expecting a computer-imagined person to show up, however.

"You have appeared before this court and been able to testify verbally in the past," Judge Manzanet-Daniels continued. "You have gone to my clerk's office and held verbal conversations with our staff for over 30 minutes.

"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. If you want to have oral argument time you may stand up and give it to me."

Was it a Voice problem? Or AI business stunt?

In an interview, Dewald said: "I asked the court for permission in advance and they gave it to me. So, they were not unprepared to have the presentation. They were unprepared to see an artificially generated image."The judge's reference to an ailment refers to Dewald's bout with throat cancer 25 years ago. "Extended speaking is problematic for me," he explained. "I mean, I can go through the different things that happened, but that was part of the reason that they agreed to let me do the presentation."

I asked the court for permission in advance, and they gave it to me. So, they were not unprepared to have the presentation. They were unprepared to see an artificially generated image

Dewald, who operates a startup called Pro Se Pro that aims to help unrepresented litigants navigate the US legal system without hiring lawyers, had planned to use an AI service called ‘Tavus’ to create a realistic video avatar of himself to read his argument to the court.

"I did get a permission in advance," he claimed. "I intended to use my own replica that would have been an image of me talking. But the technology is fairly new. I had never made a replica before of myself or anybody."

Digital Dewald didn't deliver, so he sent Jim.

Dewald explained that the process of creating an avatar to appear in court involves providing ‘Tavus’ a two-to-four-minute video of the subject talking plus a one-minute segment that shows the subject standing still. That material is used to generate the subject's digital replica, a process that takes about two to four hours. He ended up using a default avatar, called Jim, rather than one of himself, though.