Dewald AI avatar argument (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept.)

What happened

Jerome Dewald, a 74-year-old self-represented plaintiff in an employment dispute, appeared before a 5-justice panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, on March 26, 2025. He had applied for and received permission to present his argument by prerecorded video. When the video began, it showed a man who was not Dewald. The figure opened: "May it please the court. I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of five distinguished justices."

The figure was an avatar, a synthetic video presenter generated by software from a script. The Register reported that the avatar came from Tavus and was a stock character, used after Dewald's attempt to generate a replica of himself did not work in time. Associated Press reporting described the software only as coming from a San Francisco company. Dewald has said he chose the method because a throat cancer diagnosis some 25 years earlier made extended speaking difficult, and because he believed the avatar would present the argument more smoothly than he could.

What the court did

Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels stopped the video and asked whether the figure was counsel. Dewald answered: "I generated that. That's not a real person." As quoted by AP, the justice said: "It would have been nice to know that when you made your application" and "I don't appreciate being misled." Dewald was permitted to continue his argument in person. The Register reported that the justice also told him he would not use the courtroom to launch a business; Dewald runs a company that serves unrepresented litigants.

Dewald later sent the court a letter of apology stating that he had not intended any harm. No sanction or written order concerning the avatar has been reported.

Where it stands

On April 17, 2025, the same panel decided Dewald v Massachusetts Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 02267. It unanimously affirmed, with costs, the trial court's order compelling arbitration and staying the action. The published decision does not mention the avatar or artificial intelligence. The record of the exchange itself comes from the court's streamed argument as reported by AP and The Register.

The obligation it engaged

The matter engages disclosure, Clause 8 of the Expert Record Standard. The court had granted leave to present a video, and the presiding justice's objection was directed to the fact that the application did not say the presenter would be synthetic. The permission a tribunal grants is measured by what it was told. Where a system will stand in front of the court, the application is the place to say so.

It also bears on non-delegation, Clause 2. The words were Dewald's, but the delivery of an argument is part of the advocate's personal presence before the court. A professional who uses a generated voice or face to present work in a hearing has put a system between himself and the tribunal, and the tribunal is entitled to know that before it sees it.

Sources

• Justia (N.Y. Appellate Division, First Department) · April 17, 2025
  Dewald v Massachusetts Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 02267
• Fortune (Associated Press) · April 4, 2025
  An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it
• The Register · April 9, 2025
  Judge slams AI entrepreneur for having avatar testify
• NBC New York (Associated Press) · April 4, 2025
  An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it

What could not be confirmed

The court's archived argument video was not opened. The tool name (Tavus) comes from The Register and Black Enterprise; AP does not name it. No source expressly links the April 17, 2025 decision to the avatar argument; the link rests on the party name, the employment-arbitration subject, the presiding justice, and The Register naming MassMutual Metro New York as the opponent.