Avatars to Replace Lawyers?

I have been beating the drum on robotics and artificial intelligence for a few years now. Almost a decade ago, I warned you about AI and the advent of large language models (LLM) in Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016), and about their power and abilities in Chatbot Wins 160,000 Legal Cases - the "Future is Now" (June 2016). I have been persistent since that time with posts like Technology Impacting Judging (March 2019). This is all old news.

Credibility is a major challenge for adjudicators. There are a myriad of issues that may affect the demeanor and presence of any witness. I have written on credibility a great deal over the years. See Credibility Again (June 2023) and the posts cited there. Perhaps my favorite and most unfortunate credibility anecdote is The Chair of Truth (February 2018).

There is evidence that computers are far more effective at detecting "liars ... than humans with the naked eye." The University of Buffalo reported in 2012 that computers are correct "more than 80 percent of the time." That was over a decade ago also. 

Make no mistake:

Computers can be more effective than humans at accessing and expressing.

Computers can be effective advocates.

Computers are adept at processing vast data quantities and complexities, in ways we may not even understand.

Computers may make better judges than humans (equivocating, "may" in self-interest).

There are those who are scared of these tools, their evolution, and their impacts on us. In March 2025, a computer tried to represent someone in a court proceeding in New York. Well, in fairness, that is what the Associated Press (AP) headline might lead you to believe:

An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it

That is a bit misleading. What factually happened in "the latest bizarre chapter in the awkward arrival of artificial intelligence in the legal world" is just another instance of a litigant using AI. The pro se party asked the Court's permission to "submit a video" instead of presenting an in-person argument.

As the video began, a "smiling, youthful-looking man with a sculpted hairdo, button-down shirt and sweater" led with the classic “May it please the court.” The AP says this was stated by "the man" in the video, but there was no man. It was a digital compilation, a computer creation, that looked like a man. This is a far cry from early avatars like Max Headroom which were mere parrots. In reality, they were actors pretending to be the harbingers of our future. 

This photo was conjured by GROK AI and is its interpretation of the prompt "smiling, youthful-looking man with a sculpted hairdo, button-down shirt and sweater." It is not a real person, and any similarity or likeness to any real person, living, dead, sentient, or otherwise is purely coincidental. 

Bad faith?

The Court shut down the video instantly. The pro-se litigant was accused of misleading the Court. The litigant was allowed then to proceed with his argument incorporeal, bodily, physical, and live. He had to have his say from his own mouth. He had to speak his own mind, in person, in fact. 

The Court did not sanction the litigant. But the litigant wrote "an apology to the court." He explained that "he felt the avatar would be able to deliver the presentation" more adequately and effectively than he could personally. He was afraid he would personally present "mumbling, stumbling, and tripping over words."

The litigant conceded after his video attempt, this methodology led the court to be "really upset about it." His perception was that the court "chewed me up pretty good." What were the judges upset by?

Should the Court have been perturbed? If you answer yes, then ask why? The litigant not being frank with the Court is an absolutely appropriate reason for the Court's disappointment, perturbation, or even ire. It is not appropriate to mislead a Court by commission or omission. Hard stop.

If the reason the Court is perturbed is simply that new tech was employed, then perhaps further introspection is warranted. Yes, it is new, unfamiliar, and even alien. Yes, it may be uncomfortable in its novelty. That said, one might wonder how it makes any difference that an avatar reads someone's statement or another human does. In this, might a chatbot represent a litigant? We know that has happened. But we would know, right, should know, right?

All that said, the most recent study seems to suggest that AI LLMs are beginning to pass the Turing Test see X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024). This means, in the scope of our expectations and fantasies formed over decades, the "be-all" has occurred in the field of AI; a be-all that has been dreamed of since 1950. 

This does not mean further evolution or revolution does not lurk in our future (it does), but it is a major milestone nonetheless.  It was the impossible dream of Turing, and yet here we are. Having reached this goal line, others will set new goal lines, even as the stragglers catch up to this Turing point. 

The news is that the University of California San Diego says it tested four LLM: "GPT-4o, LLaMa-3, and GPT-4.5 and Eliza." Two of the four passed the Turing Test rather convincingly - LLaMa-3, and GPT-4.5. The two that failed nonetheless still did pretty well, but not quite a passing quality. Focusing back on the thoughts in Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024), this is indeed "the end of the beginning."

It is significant that the successful Turing test results are attributed in part to having "the synthetic mimics adopt a human persona." In other words, the programmers told the AI LLMs to seem human. That made them more believable. That credibility is exactly what the pro see litigant in New York hoped for and sought with his attempt to use AI as his spokesperson.

As AI evolves into our day-to-day, the power-user will ask it not only to write a brief but to write it in the voice of the judge who will review it. Familiarity and flattery will get you everywhere. 

The power users will evolve from asking an AI to describe a situation to asking it to describe the facts in a manner most sympathetic to one view, side, or perspective. In a future post, I plan to explain more about our predispositions, but the bottom line is that we humans are malleable and manipulable. 

The "end of the beginning indeed." we are off the edge of the map. The tools are increasingly capable and effective. We are unprepared to engage them, use them, and guard against their potential failures or shortcomings. These are strange days indeed. What are you doing to prepare yourself?

Malicious and Destructive

Some crave "going viral." There is some thrill when the "Friends," "connections," "likes," etc. spiral upward. The brain perceives that as popularity and the Dopamine flows, and perhaps addicts. There is also some contention that performers experience a Dopamine "thrill" when they are on stage, or perhaps on the air? There is some evidence that our culture "seems to reward aggressive and angry behavior," and the bully brain may generate a similar neuro reward to the bully. 

However we get the result, there has always been a desire to be among the "cool kids," and whatever the future of social media, the internet, and AI, that will not change. Unfortunately, one of the ways bullies have evolved in this century is through social media. Perhaps we see it also in on-air personalities?

Despite the potential for such good feelings, the world of the internet and social media is a place of great peril. There are demons there, trolls, and worse. In basements around the planet, there lurk keyboard warriors who are quick with a joke, a profanity, or an attack. They pile on, demean, and insult. 

They relish anonymity and seemingly have no filter. See Keyboard Attacks (October 2024) and the posts linked there. Goodness knows what their mothers would do/say if they found out what was being typed in their basements by these anonymous great lame obnoxious basement slugs (GLOBS©).

But no person is limited to what the social media world perceives or believes. We are each worthwhile, despite any perceptions of others. Maggie Lindemann had a viral hit with Pretty Girl (300 Entertainment, 2016). The lyrics, after an expression of contempt for some accouterments of feminity, remind us that

"I'm not just a pretty girl

I'm more than just a picture

I'm a daughter and a sister

Sometimes it's hard for me to show

That I'm more than just a rumour

Or a song on your computer

There's more to me than people know"

She means that there is a life behind each face. There are stories and emotions, depth, concerns, and humanity. People are not just some profile, story, wall, or photo.

Those lyrics came to me when I read of an Old Miss student who was driven into isolation and hiding by the internet and the GLOBS who strive for its popularity, rush, and unfortunately, it was likely all about the money. Money comes from clicks, and clicks come from controversy. The story likely hit my feed because I pay some attention to the news of Lafayette County. See I Never Knew Oxford Had a Comma (March 2017).

 

It appears that some popular broadcasters have said some salacious and unfortunate things about an 18-year-old Old Miss Freshman. They apparently made their comments based on what they read on social media ("you can't put it on the internet if its not true" - hint, yes you can). The allegations went "viral on X" (f\k\a "Twitter"). In addition to maligning the Freshman, there are troubling and salacious comments about others in the story. Lives have been profoundly affected.  

The Freshman accuses ESPN network, Pat McAfee, Doug Vaughn, Jack Mack, Antonio Brown, and others of spreading rumors over the airwaves and perhaps social media. It appears that some of their expression, accusations, or innuendo have also fed the furor of the GLOBS, who have attacked with remarkable ferocity and enthusiasm. There may be some bullies involved or perhaps there is ignorance and indifference. 

 

At 18 years old this Freshman finds her name tarnished, her safety threatened, and her world in turmoil. She has been driven from her own life by GLOBS and ghouls she never met. Her offense? The best I can find is that she is a "pretty girl," and therefore somehow the target of envy, jealousy, ire, projection, pettiness, and exploitation. But, she is "more than just a rumor." She is, apparently, an innocent victim of some purposeless assault. 

 

The news is replete with stories about it. Neither her name nor the salacious nonsense spouted on the air bears repeating here. What bears noting is that the accusations and rumors broadcast by the broadcasters and GLOBS have no factual basis. Glamour concludes that "there is absolutely no evidence" to support the allegations.

To all present appearances, these pundits and basement-dwellers have simply jumped on the bandwagon and ruined someone's life for the mere fun and profit of it.  If hurting others makes you feel good, that is beyond sad. People who thrive on the pain of others are bullies. Get some help. Many people make mistakes, even bullies, but bullies never apologize.

The young lady has allegedly been accosted both on campus and digitally. She says she has lost sleep, health, and peace of mind. She has been followed, screamed at, belittled, insulted, maligned, doxed, and defamed. As far as I can find, none of the public figures or GLOBS have:

1. retracted their statements
2. apologized for any mistake or misstatement
3. taken a modicum of responsibility for the impacts of their words
4. Offered her assistance in any regard

At the end of the analysis, per Ms. Lindemann, this young lady is more than "just a pretty girl." She is, like virtually all the others in the world, "more than just a picture," in fact "a daughter and a sister." She is a person. She has worth. She has not been proven to have committed any wrong. What is the fascination with tearing her down?  

In that, it is perhaps important that she is not a public person who ascends some stage or outlet and seeks the world's attention. We have long afforded such "public persons" less defamation protection than others. Give New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) a read sometime. Despite various attempts, that decision remains a demarcation for the public person v. private person and defamation. There is room to debate whether anyone is a private person in the age of social media, but that is for another day. 

 

Are the various, and to all appearances unwarranted, attacks on this college Freshman actionable? It is incomprehensible how deep the impact might be, or how long it will persist. Does anyone deserve to become a meme or punchline? Well, if you claim fame then perhaps so. But if you are dragged, kicking, and screaming into the spotlight? Imagine the rest of your life becoming a punchline because some bullies and GLOBS made you their dopamine path of the day? 

Time will tell. This Old Miss Freshman has hired a lawyer and proposes some recovery of damages from those she accuses of maligning her; the broadcasters, not the anonymous GLOBS. It may be that GLOBS are never identified or pursued. Nonetheless, the New York Post quotes a family member proposing that the proceeds of any lawsuit would be:

“used to provide seed capital establishing a foundation focused on helping innocent victims of similar defamatory cyber attacks.”

Wow. From victimization to striving to help others. There is more to this Freshman; this reaction is admirable. 

There is some groundswell of indignation. Some have suggested that ESPN must fire McAfee. There have been multiple Twitter posts urging that outcome. Some have been more virulent than others. Some of those attacks are similarly from the GLOBS community. The tendency to pile-on is intriguing, troubling, and yet seemingly persistent.

One might expect a measure of empathy or restraint. As The Athlete Lifestyle reported, Mr. McAfee retreated from the stress of Super Bowl coverage to take his wife and daughter to Disney in a private jet recently. Yes, "daughter" as in a young lady. Mr. McAfee is a father, with a daughter. One might conjecture about his reaction if a national broadcaster one day elected to spread salacious rumors about his daughter as she innocently navigates college? 

Empathy. 

One day? Perhaps what he is traversing presently would bring empathy. Mr. McAfee shared in March that he was being called out and threatened by GLOBS about unrelated public comments. Bleacher Report says he has received death threats directed at himself and "his infant daughter." That is likewise atrocious. 

The implications of that are as atrocious and inappropriate as what the young lady at Old Miss faces. Death threats are way past the line. And yet, so is a great deal more.  

It might surprise, but there is some evidence that bullies are more likely to have also been bullied. In this bullying could be self-perpetuating. That bears some consideration. 

Where is the empathy? When is the apology? When is the admission that what was said had no basis in fact? When will the megaphone that started this assault on the young lady engage to retract it? When will that megaphone instead celebrate her and her composure in the face of their assault?

Everybody makes errors. Each of us has said things we should not. We have all been responsible for someone's pain, exclusion, or perceptions, intended or not. When our words or actions injure, we apologize. There are lessons here. 

In the context of workers' compensation, the fact is that poorly worded statements happen often in litigation. By intent or not, people's feelings are hurt. Actions are misperceived, words are misinterpreted, and reputations may be implicated. There is heat-of-the-moment, frustration, anxiety, and much more woven into litigation. We will have human reactions, sometimes regrettably. 

When we find out we have damaged, we apologize. Humans are not inherently malicious and destructive. We are flawed, stressed, anxious, and more. We will damage. When we do, we must apologize, mean it, and hope to move on. We could all do a better job of ignoring the salacious, avoiding the bandwagon, and rejecting the bullies and GLOBS.

Being a bully does not make you a "cool kid." Neither does insulting, belittling, or maligning. Empathy makes you a "cool kid," and will allow you to improve and benefit your community. We could all take a lesson in dignity from a Freshman at Old Miss.

Could it be a Trait?

You may as well smile. Life is periodically going to give you lemons. What you do with them is your business though. Jenna Raine takes the metaphorical "lemonade" posture and sets it to music in It is what it is () which begins with a recitation of life's little problems and then hits a bit with the refrain:

Hey! Lemons make lemonade, 

Flowers bloom in the rain

Growing up is a pain, And it is what it is

Okay! It's not the end of the world, 

There's always light where it burns

Just remember the words, 

And it goes like this 

It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is

A sound mental health outlook. Some things just happen.

The lyrics returned to me recently when I read about the young lady arrested in Georgia for speeding. You read that right, arrested for speeding. You must drive pretty fast in Florida to get arrested for speeding, but my curiosity was piqued. The headline about her smiling mugshot was a draw, but the addition of "Locked up Miss America" made it a "must-click."

The story is somewhat amusing because she was not just pulled over, but pulled over "twice in a matter of minutes." To be fair, I have been pulled over twice in one day before, but that is a whole other story. On this lady's first stop, she was ticketed "for going 79 mph in a 55 mph zone." Ticket in hand, she pulled out and ramped it up a bit to "84 mph in the 55 mph zone."

That reminded me of a joke told about a comedian who was stopped for 85 in Iowa. He explained to the trooper that he was trying to get to 88 MPH to get "back to the future." Try that one on next time you are conversing with an officer. I dare you.

Speaking of Iowa, and not meaning to run anyone down (sorry), the news reported an incident there where troopers "stopped 30 cars for speeding, and one driver was even jailed after they were allegedly caught doing a mighty 144 mph." There was one problem: "The stopwatch they were using was set to kilometers instead of miles." 

First, a stopwatch? That seems unlikely. But even so, it means Iowans do not understand the metric system any better than the rest of us. See 144 Kilometers per hour is more like 90 MPH. If the young lady in Georgia tries that defense, perhaps she was only going 84 KPH or 52 MPH?

But the real story is that this college student smiled in her mugshot, posted a bond, and headed back out on the highways. She went viral and received a lot of attention. The comments reported were untoward and even "unhinged." Her own response was perhaps the best though: "I had no idea you could get arrested for speeding." Well, a lot of folks likely think that.

People Magazine had an interesting article that included some comments by the student's parents. In that interview, she assured that "she's since learned her lesson."

Her story continues, supporting the concept of habit. She smiled again in her next mugshot days later. Yes, that "learned her lesson" bit was maybe premature (not an April Fool's joke). She was most recently arrested by campus police for "loitering/prowling and obstructing a law enforcement officer." 

It appears she and others were in a campus building after hours ("oh, the humanity!"). They all fled the police, but this lady was found "crouching behind a wall ... in an apparent attempt to hide." Running and hiding are apparently obstruction at UGA. I have watched people on the news set up campsites on campus that were not arrested. 

I am hearing Stadler and Waldorf now: "What does this have to do with workers' compensation?"

Well, the smiling reminded me of striving for comprehension with my students in evidence class. Section 90.404 generally precludes "evidence of a person's character or a trait of character," subject to some exceptions. There are also specific times when proof of other crimes may be admissible for some purposes.

This made me think. Could the prosecution in the latest arrest for loitering/prowling introduce evidence of the earlier arrest for speeding (ignore for a moment that prior incident is an arrest and not a conviction)? Not likely. Doesn't it prove she is a scofflaw? Not likely.

But what of the smiling that made this young lady famous? Could cheerfulness or bravery be a character trait? Would smiling in one booking photo raise the chance of comparing that to a second booking photo? The first photo (speeding) could not be introduced to prove she did or did not smile in the second (loitering) unless she introduced it to prove her trait or the prosecution does so to rebut her allegation of the trait.

Similarly, the first speeding could not be introduced to prove that she was more than likely speeding the second time. That would be more of an attempt at habit than a trait.

But, is bravery or cheerfulness a "trait?" Would her refusal or neglect to smile on the second mugshot be meaningful? Atlanta News First reported that she in fact did smile in the second. Does this prove that she has a tendency to be strong, unflappable, and confident? Is her demeanor and presentation a "trait" for the purpose of evidence and admissibility?

The story she has provided us is a sound example of identifying traits, and the role they might have in an evidentiary proceeding. In looking for traits, the careful litigator may strive to introduce such evidence of trait when relevant and persuasive. The effect depends on the behavior being a trait, and demonstrating its relevance to the finder of fact.

Can you show that "It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is?"