Draft an authenticity challenge or expert-instruction letter
Key facts
- Human involvement
- RedLawyer-led
- How AI is used
- 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.
- What the lawyer must review
- 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.
- Written for / version
- US
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply: US
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Supporting preparation only. Limit any support to organising, indexing or comparing the source material. The tool writes nothing into the document. Substantive advice, judgement and any restricted content remain with the responsible human. |
| Lawyer | Perform the substantive analysis and decisions. Independently check any permitted supporting work and approve the exact output for its intended use. |
Checklist
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Verify every relied-on citation, figure and name against the source document.
- The responsible lawyer approves the exact version before use.
Forms and precedents for this task
| Form or precedent | Kind | AI use | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Court checklist: generative AI and evidentiary material | Checklist | AI use Yellow | A checklist for evidentiary material in the Federal Court where generative AI may have been used: when the practice note requires disclosure, what that disclosure must say, and what must not be put into a tool. |
| NSW Supreme Court limits on generative AI in evidentiary material | Checklist | AI use Yellow | A checklist of Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 on affidavits, witness statements, exhibits, and expert reports: the prohibition, the disclosure that generative AI was not used, and what an application for leave must identify. |
| Protocol for exchange of native electronic files where authenticity is in issue | Agreement | AI use Red | Short protocol the parties can adopt for a file whose authenticity, identity or provenance is disputed: native file, hash, metadata export, no public AI, and a timetable for a s 167 request. |
| Letter asking that devices and native files be preserved | Letter | AI use Red | Letter asking a party or a non-party to keep devices, accounts and native files so that an authenticity question can still be investigated, without claiming that the letter is a court order. |
| NSW verification of citations and evidence references in written submissions | Checklist | AI use Yellow | A checklist for the verification Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 requires in written submissions: citations exist, are accurate and relevant, and references to evidence were checked by a person rather than only by a generative tool. |
Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one. All precedents.
Sources
- Harvey: How to Write a Demand Letter Using AI · 2026-09-23
Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.