//Deepfakes, behind counsel
Deepfake Consulting Expert Behind Counsel
Matt Aubin is the consulting expert behind counsel on deepfake and AI generated media. He reads the examination, tells you what it supports, writes the analysis and briefs you. The forensic examination of the file itself runs through E3 Legacy Intel.
By Matt Aubin, Founder, Southern Recon Agency and E3 Legacy Intel. CDFE, FBCI. Investigating since 2009. Updated .
Two routes. The examination of the file goes to E3 Legacy Intel. The consulting question, what the findings mean for the case and what to do with them, comes here.
Examination: e3intel.io/deepfake-verification. Consulting expert: Matt Aubin, CDFE, FBCI, AI investigation expert and cybercrime specialist, founder of Southern Recon Agency and E3 Legacy Intel.
How does deepfake evidence hold up in court right now?
No court rule yet governs it directly. Draft Rule 901(c), which would set the test for evidence claimed to be fabricated by AI, is still a draft and has never been published for comment. Until it moves, a challenged recording is authenticated under Rule 901 and its reliability is argued under Rule 702.
That is the whole of it as of September 2026. What decides a deepfake fight today is not a new rule, it is whether the party challenging the recording can put provenance facts and examination findings in front of the judge early enough to matter. Proposed Rule 707, which would hold machine generated evidence to the Rule 702 reliability standard, is also still a draft and has no effective date. The dated status of both, with the committee record behind them, is on Rule 707 and Rule 901(c): AI evidence status. This is general information, not legal advice.
What is the difference between the examination and the consulting role?
The examination is the forensic work on the file itself. The video, audio or image is analyzed for the artifacts a generative model leaves behind, its metadata and provenance are checked, and the findings are documented to a forensic standard. That work runs through E3 Legacy Intel's deepfake verification service. The consulting role is what happens around it for the attorney. Matt Aubin reads the examination, tells counsel plainly what it does and does not support, writes the analysis, builds the discovery and question list, and briefs the lawyer. The examination answers whether the media is real. The consulting expert turns that answer into a plan counsel can use.
When should counsel bring in a consulting expert on a suspected deepfake?
Before anyone files anything that relies on the recording, and immediately when the other side produces media your client says is fake. Draft Rule 901(c) would require the party alleging a deepfake to offer enough for a reasonable person to infer fabrication before the burden shifts. A bare claim is not enough. That threshold is built from examination findings and provenance facts, gathered early, while the original file, the device and the account records still exist. Brought in at the start, a consulting expert can also stop a client from relying on a recording that will not survive the other side's examiner.
Where Rule 901(c) and proposed Rule 707 stand today, dated and sourced: Rule 707 and Rule 901(c): AI evidence status.
What does counsel get in the written analysis on deepfake evidence in court?
Six things. A plain statement of what the examination found and what it means for the case. The provenance chain for the file, from capture or generation to the copy in evidence, with the gaps marked. The artifacts and indicators, weighed rather than scored. What the other side would need to produce to prove the media authentic, or to prove it fabricated. The questions to put to their examiner. And the limits of the method, stated so the attorney is never surprised. It is written for counsel and stays behind counsel. It is not a report for the other side.
Who examines the file itself?
At E3 Legacy Intel, the cyber intelligence division of Southern Recon Agency, at e3intel.io/deepfake-verification. Send the file there for the examination itself, whether it is one recording in a family law or defamation matter or an ongoing volume of media. Bring the consulting question here: how the findings fit the case, what to demand, and what to argue. One person is behind both, Matt Aubin, who founded the firm and built the AI it runs on.
Examination service: e3intel.io/deepfake-verification. The wider consulting seat on AI evidence, including AI assisted investigations and AI written expert reports, is described on AI evidence consulting expert for attorneys.
When the deepfake was used to move money, AI cybercrime consulting is the page for it, and Evidence-Grade AI sets out what has to be true before any of it is worth putting in front of a court.
Suspected deepfake in a matter?
Send the file to E3 for the examination. Bring the case question here, and you get a written analysis for counsel.