 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
James Dewald, a plaintiff in a New York State employment case, was granted permission by an appellate division court to submit his argument via a video. This presentation, however, lasted all of a few seconds as Dewald used an AI-generated avatar created by some company in San Francisco rather than one that looked more like him.
The judges became suspicious when a video of a handsome young man wearing a buttoned-down shirt seemingly sitting in a home office said, “May it please the court, I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of distinguished justices…”
The senior judge, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, asked the man whether this was counsel for the case. Dewald confessed and apologized to the court. I wonder what tipped her off. It’s not as if the image said, I come here today not to praise my employer but to bury him.
I watched the court recording and noted that Her Honour was livid, chastising the appellant for misleading the court by not disclosing this AI-generated demon in advance. She shouted, “Shut that thing off.” I think she would have lunged at the screen had she had a gavel.
I would say Manzanet-Daniels is still fuming. I hear rumours that she secured a picture of the gentleman and that she has gone online to Amazon to order a voodoo kit. Holy avatar.
I actually Googled “avatar” and noted that it comes from Hindu Sanskrit, meaning a manifestation of deity in bodily form on earth, such as a divine teacher. This sounds heavy-duty spooky to me. If I was a judge on that panel, I would have hesitated a bit before shutting the recording. I likely would have gone over to the window hoping to see a rainbow.
AI has stirred up a number of problems in the courtroom. One is coming up with fictitious case law. I’m retired from practice. I know diddly about AI. But I would suggest to my colleagues that they scrutinize their AI research carefully. Watch out for hints of doubtful cases, such as those with ominous citations, such as 7 Supreme Court Bogus, 11 Ontario Phony Reports. Or 21 Canada Counterfeit Cases. These might have questionable authenticity. Mentioning them may really piss off a judge.
I am not saying that judges do not have their quirks. Back in the mid-1970s after I got called to the bar, there was a judge who was a notorious stickler on what he considered prosper courtroom attire. He expected male lawyers to wear black or gray pants. I once witnessed an unsuspecting colleague starting to plead his case while wearing brown trousers. His Lordship interrupted him saying, “I can’t hear you.” The man of course raised his voice, but the judge kept on repeating his mantra. Eventually another lawyer in the courtroom approached the frustrated gentleman and told him in a low voice that the problem was the brown pants. After a short conference between the two lawyers, the rescuer, wearing black trousers, addressed Justice Fred Finicky on behalf of his shocked colleague and the matter was adjourned. How’s that for the advancement of justice?
Have times changed? While I can’t blame those New York judges for getting upset over the AI presentation, I don’t think that lawyer 50 years ago got a lighter takedown than James Dewald.
I think about ever-changing technology. I was lawyering initially using typewriters. The delete function was liquid white-out. I thought the greatest invention ever was the sticky note. Yes!
And many lawyers got their exercise dose during a court recess scrambling to get ahead of others, running from the courtroom to the two or three available payphones. You had to make sure you were always prepared, arriving to the courthouse with a stash of dimes in your pockets (any colour pants).
I wonder how AI would digest my anecdote about this stickler judge. I would play around with ChatGPT if I knew what to do. It would not surprise me if I enter the facts, the virtual oracle would probably come out with a report reading, “When a judge looks at brown pants, he suddenly gets deaf.”
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe, is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X: @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.