You’ve
heard
of
lawyers
using
AI
to
do
their
research
or
even
draft
briefs,
but
sending
an
AI
Avatar
to
deliver
the
oral
argument
is
a
new
one.
And
it’s
not
a
popular
one
with
the
judges!
In
Dewald
v.
MassMutual
Metro,
the
Appellate
Division,
First
Department
expected
some
sort
of
audio-visual
presentation
as
part
of
the
pro
se
litigant’s
argument.
It’s
not
exactly
standard
procedure,
but
the
justices
were
willing
to
accommodate
an
unrepresented
party.
The
panel
even
took
the
matter
out
of
turn
to
accommodate
the
relevant
IT
issues.
That’s
when
they
were
treated
to
a
few
seconds
of
this
generic
tech
bro
robot
“representing”
the
appellant.
Giving
serious
“LinkedIn
Hustle
Post”
vibes.
Aside
from
everything
else,
why
use
an
avatar
in
a
quarter
zip
instead
of
something
at
least
passably
courtroom
appropriate?
They
make
AI
slop
in
suits
—
we
know
that
from
the
Arizona
court
system’s
in-house
press
nonsense.
Within
seconds
of
Clarence
D-AI-rrow’s
argument,
the
court
cut
it
off
and
asked
what
was
up
and
the
actual
attorney
explained,
“I
generated
that.
That
is
not
a
real
person.”
No
kidding.
The
video
filed
a
pro
hac
motion
from
Uncanny
Valley.
My
first
instinct
—
charitable
observer
that
I
am
—
was
that
this
was
an
accessibility
issue,
opening
up
the
space
for
a
lawyer
who
might
have
a
condition
limiting
their
ability
to
present
themselves.
This
notion
is
quickly
dashed
by
the
justices:
You
have
appeared
before
this
court
and
been
able
to
testify
verbally
in
the
past.
You
have
gone
to
my
clerk’s
office
and
held
verbal
conversations
with
our
staff
for
over
30
minutes.
Okay,
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.
So
if
you
are
able
to
shut
that
off…
If
you
want
to
have
oral
argument
time,
you
may
stand
up
and
give
it
to
me,
you
have
five
minutes,
your
time
has
started.
At
that
point,
the
pro
se
litigant
seemed
to
read
what
would’ve
been
the
AI’s
script.
Look,
pro
se
litigants
face
a
lot
of
challenges,
but
turning
over
the
argument
to
a
bot
seems
to
exacerbate
those
struggles.
If
the
pro
se
fears
they
don’t
know
enough
about
the
law,
then
the
script
is
going
to
be
garbage
in,
garbage
out.
It’s
much
better
to
try
to
make
the
argument
in
person
and
give
the
judges
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions.
They’ll
likely
help
advance
the
case
better
by
leading
the
discussion
anyway.
Hey,
at
least
it
wasn’t
a
cat.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.