Rise of Avatars in Courts: Innovation or Intrusion

In a world where artificial intelligence continues to blur the lines between physical and digital presence, the courtroom — a place once steeped in rigid tradition — is undergoing a quiet revolution. Avatars, once the domain of video games, social media, and movies  have now found their way into the solemn chambers of justice. This shift raises a pivotal question: will courts embrace avatars as valuable tools for presenting arguments and clarifying case law, or will they reject them as unwelcome intrusions that have no place in the pursuit of justice?

This blog is written by Dina Blikshteyn, a partner and Co-Chair of AI and Deep Learning Practice Group and Haynes Boone, LLP. Dina focuses her practice on intellectual property including patent portfolio management and post grant proceedings in the technology space. Dina also regularly counsels clients on various issues related to AI. 

---

Tools and applications powered by artificial intelligence (AI) continue their rapid rise in the legal profession. In 2025, avatars made their courtroom debuts in two states — New York and Arizona — with dramatically different results. While using avatars offers many advantages, it is equally important to disclose their use, as well as the use of other AI tools — to ensure transparency and maintain trust in the legal process.

Arizona

The Arizona Supreme Court introduced AI-generated avatars to announce rulings issued by the Court’s justices. The two avatars, Daniel and Victoria, were created in human likeness and are now tasked with delivering the Court’s rulings in plain language, without legalese. Importantly, the avatars do not generate the summaries of the rulings themselves. Instead, they deliver scripts written and approved by the justices to ensure accuracy and clarity. Each video begins with the avatar stating that it is an AI-generated Supreme Court reporter and that the script was authored by the justices. The avatars then present the script, making the content of the ruling directly accessible to the public without relying on the media. A news release prepared by the Court and the actual ruling are also linked next to a video recording of the avatar.

Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer noted that creating an avatar to deliver the script takes about twenty minutes, resulting in significant time savings for the Court. She also highlighted that in the future, avatars may deliver rulings in multiple languages, such as Spanish — making the Court’s decisions accessible to a wider audience.

New York

The experience with avatars in the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division was markedly different. In New York, a pro se litigant and AI entrepreneur, Mr. Jerome Dewald, requested permission to play a video of his argument before a five-judge panel. In the video, a well-dressed AI-generated avatar began presenting arguments on Mr. Dewald’s behalf. The avatar appeared so lifelike that Judge Sallie Manzanet-Daniels asked whether the avatar was the counsel on the case. Mr. Dewald replied that the person in the video was not real, but rather an AI-generated avatar. The judge immediately ordered the video to be shut off and instructed Mr. Dewald to argue on his own behalf.

Although Mr. Dewald apologized to the Court, explaining that he had used the avatar because he feared stumbling through his oral argument, the judge was not impressed. Judge Manzanet-Daniels noted that Mr. Dewald had misled the Court by failing to disclose that the video would feature an avatar when he applied for permission to present a video argument. She also reprimanded Mr. Dewald for appearing to use the courtroom as a platform to promote his AI startup.

Takeaways

Disclosure—or the lack of it—appears to be at the heart of the divergent experiences with avatars in Arizona and New York courts. In Arizona, the avatars expressly disclosed that they were AI-generated. In contrast, Mr. Dewald, whether intentionally or not, failed to inform the Court that an avatar would be presenting his argument. This raises an interesting question: had Mr. Dewald disclosed at the time of his application that his words and argument would be delivered by an avatar, would the Court have allowed him to proceed?

As generative AI gains popularity, both courts and the legal profession will continue to explore various applications of AI. It is already clear that AI can:

• Improve public understanding of court rulings.

• Save time and resources by delivering concise and clear content via avatars.

• Enhance the delivery of oral arguments by litigants.

• Reach a wider audience through multilingual delivery.

Additionally, many AI legal tools are already widely available to assist courts and legal professionals in their work. However, if litigants choose to use AI, it is crucial to review state, federal, and court-specific disclosure rules in the relevant jurisdiction to ensure that AI use is permitted. Litigants must also understand that any errors resulting from AI remain their responsibility.

---

Collaborate with us!

As always, we appreciate you taking the time to read our blog post.

If you have news relevant to our global WAI community or expertise in AI and law, we invite you to contribute to the WAI Legal Insights Blog. To explore this opportunity, please contact WAI editors Silvia A. Carretta, WAI Chief Legal Officer (via LinkedIn or silvia@womeninai.co), or Dina Blikshteyn (dina@womeninai.co).

Silvia A. Carretta and Dina Blikshteyn

- Editors