Staff Reports
A New York courtroom recently witnessed a spectacle that could only happen in our high-tech, headline-chasing era: a 74-year-old man, Jerome Dewald, tried to defend himself not with a seasoned attorney, but with an AI-generated avatar. Dewald, representing himself in an employment dispute, played a video of a digital “lawyer”—a slick, youthful avatar delivering his oral arguments. The judges, at first unsure if this was a real attorney, were quickly informed by Dewald that he had generated the avatar himself. The reaction was swift and stern; Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels abruptly halted the proceedings, making it clear she didn’t appreciate being misled and ordered the video turned off.
This incident isn’t just a quirky footnote; it’s a warning shot about the dangers of letting technology run wild in our justice system. While some in the courtroom joked about the potential for AI to be the ultimate unbiased lawyer—no billboards, no coffee breaks, just pure data—the reality is that the legal system is built on human judgment, advocacy, and ethical responsibility. AI, no matter how sophisticated, can’t match the wisdom, discernment, or accountability of a real attorney. The judge’s reaction was not just about courtroom decorum; it was about upholding the integrity of the legal process.
Conservatives have long warned about the perils of unchecked technology and the erosion of personal responsibility. This case proves the point: Dewald’s attempt to use a digital stand-in wasn’t just a technological stunt; it was an evasion of the very real, very human duty to stand and account for oneself before the law. Our justice system depends on the presence of real people—witnesses, advocates, and defendants—who can be questioned, challenged, and held to account. Allowing AI avatars to take the place of human participants risks turning our courts into farcical, unaccountable bureaucracies.
Moreover, the ethical concerns surrounding AI in law are not hypothetical. There have already been high-profile cases where lawyers, relying on AI tools, submitted fabricated legal research, resulting in fines and professional embarrassment. AI can be a powerful tool for research and document review, but it’s no substitute for the judgment and advocacy skills that only a human lawyer can provide. The American legal tradition is rooted in the idea of vigorous defense and due process values that cannot be outsourced to an algorithm.
In the end, this courtroom drama is a reminder that while technology can assist, it must never replace the human heart of our legal system. The law is about more than just rules and logic; it’s about justice, accountability, and the uniquely human search for truth. Conservatives understand that progress must be balanced with prudence, and that some roles—like defending oneself in court—require a human touch. Dewald’s experiment may have been novel, but it’s a path we should be wary of following. The lesson is clear: leave the robots at home, and bring your best human self to the bar.
