• Atlanta
• Boston
• Dallas
• Ft. Lauderdale
• London
• Minneapolis
• New York
• Oakland
• Philadelphia
• Washington, DC

by Jennifer Gibbs

In a case that reads more like a courtroom comedy than a High Court ruling, a London judge recently found that a witness was being coached on his answers in real time through a pair of smart glasses connected to his mobile phone — and when the scheme fell apart, he blamed it on ChatGPT. 

The incident came to light in January 2026 during an insolvency proceeding before ICC Judge Raquel Agnello KC. Laimonas Jakstys, a Lithuanian businessman, had brought a claim seeking to be reinstated as a director of a property development company and to have the company's register rectified. Things went off the rails almost immediately once Jakstys took the witness stand.

What Happened

Jakstys testified through an interpreter, and from the outset of cross-examination, he paused noticeably before answering questions. Defense counsel noticed that she could hear electronic interference coming from around the witness and asked the judge to have Jakstys remove his glasses, as she was aware that smart glasses existed. The interpreter, seated beside Jakstys in the witness box, confirmed she could hear the interference too.

Sure enough, Jakstys was wearing smart glasses. The judge directed him to remove them, but the show wasn't over. Moments later, while the interpreter was still translating a question, Jakstys's mobile phone began broadcasting a voice out loud — someone was clearly speaking to him through the phone, which had been connected to the glasses. The judge ordered both the glasses and the phone placed in the hands of Jakstys's solicitor.

The Cover Story

Jakstys denied that he had been using the smart glasses to receive answers and denied they were connected to his phone. When asked about the voice heard from his phone, he offered an explanation that the judge described as entirely lacking credibility: he said he thought it was ChatGPT. 

The call log on Jakstys's phone told a different story. It showed multiple calls to a contact saved as "abra kadabra," including one placed just minutes before Jakstys entered the witness box. When pressed on the identity of "abra kadabra," Jakstys claimed it was a taxi driver he was calling to arrange a ride home from court. When asked why so many calls were made with the same message, he responded — as he did frequently throughout his testimony — that he could not remember. 

In a further twist, Jakstys reported two days after his initial testimony that he had been robbed of both his mobile phones and his passport. No police report or witness statement about the alleged robbery was ever produced.

The Ruling

Judge Agnello found that the smart glasses were "clearly connected" to Jakstys's mobile phone during cross-examination and that a call had been active during his testimony until the phone was physically confiscated. She accepted that Jakstys was "being assisted or coached in his replies to questions put to him during cross examination." She also noted that once the glasses were removed, Jakstys "hesitated quite a bit" before providing answers and frequently asked for questions to be repeated — making it "clear to me he simply did not know what his reply should be."

The judge ultimately rejected Jakstys's evidence "in its entirety," finding him "untruthful" about his use of the smart glasses and "unreliable" in his testimony overall. She further found that his witness statements had been "clearly prepared by others" and that, despite asserting he could not read English, he had signed statements of truth on English-language documents. The court entered judgment for the defendants with an indemnity costs order. 

Why This Matters

This case may seem like an outlier, but practitioners on both sides of the pond should take note. As defense counsel Sarah Walker told 

Legal Futures, "This was a career first for me but, with technological advances, may well be something that litigators have to deal with much more frequently in the coming years." 

That concern is well founded. Barrister Saara Idelbi of 39 Essex Chambers observed on LinkedIn: "This time it was a human coach. Next time it will be AI." She noted that AI wearables — smart glasses, watches, necklaces, and lapel pins — are a major focus for several frontier AI companies and warned that an AI tool delivering text through a screen or audio through an earbud might not produce the same telltale interference that gave Jakstys away.

For litigators, the takeaway is clear: technology-assisted witness coaching is no longer hypothetical. Courts and counsel alike will need to develop protocols and remain vigilant as to the use of smart devices in the courtroom. These concerns are also relevant to insurers seeking to take examinations under oath, whether through virtual platforms or in person. Whatever the solution, what is clear is the era of invisible earpieces and smart glasses as cheating tools has officially begun.

_________________________________

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.