//Consulting expert, behind counsel
AI Evidence Consulting Expert for Attorneys
Matt Aubin, CDFE, FBCI, licensed Florida private investigator (A-1400197) and builder of a proprietary AI investigation platform, works behind counsel as a non testifying consulting expert who validates or attacks AI assisted and AI generated evidence, writes the analysis, and briefs the attorney.
By Matt Aubin, CDFE, FBCI, licensed Florida private investigator (A-1400197). Updated .
Status as of September 2026
Proposed Rule 707 and draft Rule 901(c) are not in effect. Both go before the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules mini conference on 15 October 2026. The reliability test they point to, Rule 702, already applies today. Full status, with primary sources, on the two rule page.
When AI touched the evidence, somebody has to be able to say whether the machine was reliable. That is the consulting expert's job, and it is done for the attorney, not for the other side.
What does a consulting expert on AI evidence do that a testifying expert does not?
A consulting expert works behind the attorney and is not disclosed to the other side. Matt Aubin takes that seat: he examines the AI assisted or AI generated evidence, tells counsel plainly whether it holds up, writes the analysis, and briefs the attorney on what to demand in discovery, what to ask, and where the method breaks. Counsel keeps control of what is filed and of who, if anyone, is put forward to the court. The product is a written analysis for the attorney, not a report the other side gets to pick apart.
How do you validate an AI assisted investigation before it reaches court?
Four checks, mapped to the Evidence-Grade AI Standard. Every finding traces to a source that exists and says what the report says it says. A supervision log shows what was asked of the AI, what came back, and who verified it. The records behind each finding are checked against the databases they came from. And the method's limits and error rate are stated rather than assumed. The system and version, the steps, and the chain of custody are documented so another examiner could repeat the work. That record is what survives a Rule 702 reliability challenge.
The full framework is the Evidence-Grade AI Standard. When the question is your own firm's workflow rather than a single piece of evidence, the AI Investigation Audit runs the same checks across the whole process and delivers a signed report.
How do you attack the other side's AI generated or deepfake evidence?
The same checks, run in reverse. Start with the record: if the other side cannot produce the inputs, the prompts, the system and version, and the human verification behind an AI output, that output is an assertion, not a finding. For media offered as real, the questions are provenance, metadata, and the artifacts a generative model leaves behind. For a report written with AI, every citation and every figure is checked against the original. Counsel receives a written analysis listing what to demand in discovery, which questions to put to the sponsoring witness, and where the method fails, so the attorney can move to exclude or limit the evidence.
Deepfake examinations themselves, the forensic work on the video, audio or image, run through E3 Legacy Intel at e3intel.io/deepfake-verification. This site covers the consulting role behind counsel; the deepfake consulting expert page explains how the two fit together.
What do proposed Rule 707 and draft Rule 901(c) change, and what is their status today?
Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 would hold machine generated evidence, offered without a human expert to sponsor it, to the same reliability standard Rule 702 applies to expert opinion. Draft Rule 901(c) would set out how a court handles evidence a party claims was fabricated or altered by AI: the opponent must first offer enough for a reasonable person to infer fabrication, and only then must the proponent prove authenticity to a higher standard than Rule 901 normally asks. Status as of September 2026: neither is in effect. Rule 707 went through public comment, was revised, and was deferred by the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules in May 2026; the Standing Committee reported in June 2026 that it does not recommend action on it at this time. Rule 901(c) was never published for comment: the committee drafted text and decided in May 2026 that an amendment was not needed yet, keeping the draft ready. Both go before the committee's mini conference on 15 October 2026. The test they point to, Rule 702, already governs expert evidence today. This is general information, not legal advice.
The dated status of both rules, with links to the committee's own materials, is kept current on Rule 707 and Rule 901(c): AI evidence status. Primary sources: the rules committee agenda books on uscourts.gov and the text of Rule 702 and Rule 901.
What does Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 require of the lawyer using AI?
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 says a lawyer may use generative AI, provided the lawyer protects client confidentiality, supervises the AI's output the way the rules require supervision of a nonlawyer assistant, keeps fees and costs reasonable so the client is not billed for time the AI saved, and follows the advertising rules if AI is used in marketing. In practice the lawyer must verify what the AI produced before relying on it, and cannot hand that responsibility to the tool. That verification is work a consulting expert can do and document for the file, which is the analysis Matt Aubin writes. This is general information, not legal advice.
Read the opinion itself: Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1.
What happens when an expert's report was written with AI (the Kohls v. Ellison problem)?
In Kohls v. Ellison, in the District of Minnesota in January 2025, the court struck an expert declaration about deepfakes after it cited sources that did not exist; the expert had drafted with a generative AI tool and had not caught the fabricated citations. The lesson is that an AI drafted expert report is only as reliable as the human check behind it. Before your own expert's report goes out, every citation and every figure should be verified against the original by someone other than the author. When the other side's expert used AI, the same check is how you find the holes. Both are consulting work Matt Aubin does for counsel, documented so the attorney can rely on it.
The docket is on the government's own site: Kohls v. Ellison, No. 24-cv-03754 (D. Minn.).
How are fees set?
Every engagement is a flat fee, scoped in writing after one conversation about the evidence, the volume, and the deadline. The retainer is paid in full before work begins, and the scope states exactly what counsel receives: the written analysis, the discovery and question list, and the briefing. There is no hourly meter and no surprise invoice. If the matter grows, a new scope and a new flat fee are agreed before the added work starts.
//Why this seat
Why counsel puts Matt Aubin behind the attorney on AI evidence
He holds the three things the seat needs at once. A Florida private investigator license (A-1400197) and the Florida Board Certified Investigator designation, held by fewer than fifty people. The Certified Digital Forensics Examiner credential, so the evidence is handled to a forensic standard. And the code: he built the proprietary AI investigation platform his own firms run on live cases, and a September 2026 census of the investigators who publicly present as AI experts found only two licensed investigators in the country who state on their own pages that they built their own AI investigation platform, and he is one of them.
Courts in Florida, California, and New York have accepted him as an expert on cryptocurrency tracing, metadata forensics, and hidden asset location, as recorded on his FALI member profile. That is history. On AI evidence he works as the consulting expert behind counsel, which keeps the analysis privileged and the strategy in the attorney's hands. He also teaches the subject: Intellenet's 2026 conference lists him for "A-I for the Modern Private Investigator" on April 15, 2026.
Send the evidence and the deadline; you get a written analysis for counsel, not a witness.
Tell me what was produced, how AI touched it, and when the motion is due. I will scope it in writing the same conversation.