AI avatars in legal appeals

On March 26, 2025, Jerome Dewald attempted to present his case — an employment dispute — before a New York appeals court using an AI-generated avatar as his counsel.

Within seconds of the avatar presenting his case, the judges realized they were speaking with an AI and not a real person. The judges abruptly stopped the presentation, displeased with not being informed beforehand that Dewald had planned to use AI as his legal representation.

Dewald later explained that he created the avatar because he believed it could deliver his arguments more articulately than he ever could. In a letter of apology to the court, he acknowledged he should have been more transparent about his use of the technology and clarified he had not intended to mislead the court.

While the judges rejected his approach, the case highlights important questions about:

How virtual representation might function in legal settingsWhat boundaries courts establish around the technologyAnd what other AI avatar use cases there are in the industry

The Arizona Supreme Court has an interesting one…

Arizona's judicial AI initiatives

The Arizona Supreme Court recently introduced two AI-generated avatars, named Victoria and Daniel, specifically designed to make the judicial system more publicly accessible by delivering court news and explaining legal rulings in clear, accessible language.

Unlike Dewald's use of AI avatars, Arizona's implementation follows a careful framework. The avatars:

Are identified as AI-generatedOperate within well-defined rolesFunction as educational tools rather than legal representativesSimply recite scripts prepared by justices — they’re not interactive

This model demonstrates how AI avatars can serve educational and informational roles within appropriate ethical boundaries — enhancing accessibility without compromising judicial integrity.

While Dewald’s demonstration of AI avatars may have been construed as deceptive, Arizona proves that AI avatars can be used in the legal setting safely and effectively.

How else may AI avatars be used in legal contexts?

The future of AI avatars in the industry

The emergence of AI avatars in legal contexts presents intriguing possibilities for expanding access to justice.

For individuals who cannot afford traditional legal representation, AI avatars could offer a more accessible entry point to legal information and basic guidance.

For example, I recently spoke with a lawyer who cloned his personality into a chatbot so his clients can ask him questions whenever they want, therefore saving them time and money.

It’s a nice 80/20 solution that makes legal guidance more affordable for early-stage companies.

Providing a chatbot for all startup clients, allowing them to ask basic legal questions without incurring hourly feesOffering human support for situations that need actual legal counsel

However, this type of solution doesn’t come without complications.

Challenges with this model

Unauthorized practice of law (UPL) restrictions remain a significant hurdle for AI legal avatars and automated legal systems.

Current regulations across most jurisdictions prohibit non-lawyers from providing legal advice, creating a complex boundary that software developers and legal professionals have to navigate carefully.

The lawyer I mentioned above addresses this by explicitly stating that the chatbot's responses don't constitute legal advice.

Despite this hurdle, AI avatars could prove significant for individuals, SMBs, and startups seeking legal guidance. As these systems evolve, they could create new avenues for legal information and representation previously unavailable to many potential clients.

Bottom line

The integration of AI avatars into legal processes will require careful balancing of efficiency and ethical considerations.

While these technologies can increase accessibility and reduce costs, they must operate within appropriate boundaries that protect clients and maintain the integrity of legal processes.

The most successful implementations will likely combine AI capabilities with human oversight, using technology to extend legal services rather than replace legal professionals entirely.