By William D. Slicker
AI generated avatars have made it into the courtroom.
In 2025, Ariel and Maridol Mendones filed suit in California over a housing issue. In support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, they submitted videos and text messages that appeared to be altered. When the judge asked for verification, Maridol Mendones said that the person in the suspect video was deceased. The court scheduled a show cause hearing, but Mendones did not appear. Judge Kolakowski dismissed the case in an opinion that includes links to the AI generated evidence.[1]
In 2025, in New York, Jerome DeWald tried to have an AI generated attorney speak for him at an appellate court oral argument.[2] The senior judge on the panel disallowed it.[3]
In 2026, in Florida, Roy Miller sued Idan Bar for publishing defamatory statements about him on the internet.[4] In a Zoom hearing, a man who was a Nicolas Cage lookalike appeared to argue against a subpoena. Judge Javier Enriquez stopped the hearing and is considering Mr. Miller’s Motion for Sanctions.[5]
Judges nationwide are trying to figure out what to do. They are afraid they might make a ruling based on something that is not real.
Judge Scott Schlegel from Louisiana posed the problem this way:
My wife and I have been together over 30 years, and she has my voice everywhere.
She could easily clone my voice on free or inexpensive software to create a threatening message
that sounds like it’s from me and walk into any courthouse around the country with that recording.
The judge will sign that restraining order. So you lose your cat, dog, guns, house, you lose everything.[6]
Another concern is the creation of fake documents such as the title to a car.[7]
A further concern is that AI generated evidence will make people question the legitimacy of genuine evidence.[8]
The courts are responding. California’s Judicial Council is developing guidance for evaluating AI generated evidence. The National Center for State Courts has published bench cards to help judges assess AI generated materials.[9]
[1] Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., Case No. 23 CV 028772 (Sup. Ct. Cal. 2025)
[2] DeWald v. Mass. Mut. Ins. Co., Case No. 2024-07337 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025)
[3] Patrice, Joe, “Appellant Sends AI Avatar to Oral Argument – Are Not Released.” Above The Law, (Mar. 31, 2025) https://abovethelaw.com/2025/03/appellant-sends-ai-avatar-to-oral-argument-judges-are-not-pleased/
[4] Miller v. Idan Bar, Case No. 2026-010449-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2026)
[5] Mendez, Carlos, “Miami Zoom Circuit as ‘Deepfake’ Witness Halts Court Cold,” Hoodline (Feb. 21, 2026) https://hoodline.com/2026/02/miami-zoom-circus-as-deepfake-witness-halts-court-cold/
[6] Perlo, Jared, “AI-generated evidence is showing up in court. Judges say they’re not ready.” NBC (Nov. 18, 2025). https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ai-generated-evidence-deepfake-use-law-judges-object-rcna235976
[7] Perlo, ibid.
[8] Heaton, Conner; Cleary, Shay; and Navin, Michael, “AI Generated Evidence is a threat to public trust in the courts.” National Center for State Courts (Feb. 24, 2026) https://www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/ai-generated-evidence-threat-public-trust-courts
[9] Heaton, Cleary, Navin, ibid.
