Firm-wide obligation
Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documentsIncoming evidence — deepfakes and synthetic documents
Preserve original material and establish its provenance before relying on it. Document handling and metadata, and obtain suitable forensic assistance where authenticity is disputed or material to the matter.
Key facts
- Tasks covered
- 5
- Tasks with a step-by-step checklist
- 1
- Local differences
- 2 jurisdictions where this area changes
Jurisdiction
Tasks
GreenLawyer reviewYellowClose supervisionRedLawyer-led
| Task | How AI is used | Human involvement | What the lawyer must review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Build an authenticity checklist for a key digital exhibit | From the file, list source, capture date, metadata fields, hash if supplied and gaps against the authenticity questions the lawyer has named. | RedLawyer-led |
|
| Assess claimed deepfake or AI-generated evidence under existing FRE rules | List authenticity facts (source device, hash, provenance, who offers the item) for a Rule 901 analysis. | RedLawyer-led |
|
| Assess whether digital evidence may be generated multimedia | List each image, audio or video item and any provenance already on the file. | RedLawyer-led |
|
| Flag candidate synthetic or altered items in a production set | From a permitted production, list items with missing metadata, inconsistent fonts or reuse patterns, and a sample for human review. | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Compare claimed source metadata with the file actually produced | Extract stated author, date and device fields and compare them with the produced file's properties, listing mismatches. | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Draft an authenticity challenge or expert-instruction letter | The tool tabulates the disputed exhibits against the authenticity checklist, the metadata mismatches and the chain-of-custody gaps, and indexes the native files, export logs and hash values held for the examiner. Once the lawyer has written the challenge, it checks each allegation of fabrication or alteration back to a numbered item in that table and lists the allegations with no source yet; it writes no part of the challenge — no outline, no suggested paragraphs and no proposed grounds of objection. | RedLawyer-led | The lawyer writes both documents. Before alleging that an exhibit is fabricated or synthetic they satisfy themselves there are reasonable grounds on material they have examined, not on a tool's flag, and check each ground against the exhibit, the metadata comparison and the custody record themselves. They settle the questions to the examiner in their own words so the opinion is not led, and confirm the letter lists the documents and native copies actually supplied and serves the court's expert code. |
| Build a chain-of-custody log from the capture papers | From the capture notes, list who held the device or file, when, and what hashes or export logs exist, marking gaps. | YellowClose supervision |
|
What changes in New Zealand
| Topic | What changes |
|---|---|
| Court guidance | The Courts of New Zealand lawyer guidelines warn that tools such as DALL·E, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion can create images, audio or video that look authentic but are fake. |
| Risks | Deepfakes can be defamatory or spread misinformation. Authenticity concerns arise when multimedia is used in evidence. |
| Your duty | You remain responsible for the accuracy of material before the court. Do not enter non-public evidence into a public chatbot to test it. |
| Limits on AI assistance |
|
- Courts of New Zealand: GenAI guidelines — Lawyers (7 December 2023) · 2026-09-23
- Defamation Act 1992 · 2026-09-23
What changes in United States
Known here as: Incoming evidence — deepfakes and synthetic documents
| Topic | What changes |
|---|---|
| Proposed FRE 707 | Not recommended for action on 7 May 2026. The committee revised the draft on AI evidence offered without an expert and will study it further. Not in force. |
| Deepfakes | The committee is still studying deepfake evidence. No new rule is in force. |
| Current law | Authenticity and expert reliability stay under existing Articles 7 and 9 and case law. Formal Opinion 512 applies to tools used to screen media. |
| Limits on AI assistance |
|
Precedents for this area
- Deepfake and synthetic evidence authenticity checklist (images, audio, video and documents) (Checklist, AI use Red). Step-by-step checklist for testing whether an image, recording, video, message or document has been generated or altered with AI before relying on it or challenging it: preserve, trace provenance, examine, corroborate, and decide on expert and procedural steps.
- Letter requesting native files, metadata and device examination (Evidence Act s 167) (Letter, AI use Yellow). Letter to the other side requesting production of the original native file and metadata, examination and testing of the file and the device that produced it, and the person who created it, where AI generation or alteration is suspected.
- Letter instructing a digital forensics expert on suspected synthetic or altered media (Letter, AI use Red). Instruction letter to a digital forensics expert to examine whether images, recordings, video or documents were generated or altered with AI, setting the questions, method, chain of custody, code of conduct and AI-disclosure requirements.
- Client warning letter on AI-fabricated or altered evidence (Letter, AI use Yellow). Letter warning a client that creating, altering or "enhancing" evidence with AI is serious misconduct and may be a crime, explaining what the firm must do if it learns evidence is false, and asking for originals and provenance.
- Digital evidence intake and chain-of-custody record (Form, AI use Yellow). Form for recording how a digital exhibit was obtained, its hash values, every transfer, access and copy, and integrity checks, so that its authenticity and handling can be proved.
- Outline of submissions objecting to evidence suspected to be AI-generated or altered (Court document, AI use Red). Outline of written submissions opposing, or seeking limits on, the tender of a document, image or recording on authenticity grounds under the uniform Evidence Acts, with alternative orders for production and forensic examination.
All precedents for Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents. Signed-in accounts can read the full text.