Authenticating Digital Evidence: NYSBA CLE Sep. 25
Updated: Sep 26
Digital evidence is increasingly central to intellectual property and patent disputes, while synthetic media and deepfake technologies create new questions about what a digital exhibit can reliably establish. On September 25, 2026, the New York State Bar Association will present a one-hour virtual CLE program, “Authenticating What You Cannot Trust: Synthetic Media and Deepfake Evidence in IP and Patent Disputes.” The program is designed to introduce practical authentication issues surrounding disputed digital media while keeping the legal and technical questions appropriately distinct.
I am pleased to co-present the program with Alexander Paykin, Esq., Managing Director of Paykin Law and Chair of the NYSBA Committee on Technology and the Legal Profession. NYSBA lists the program for 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on September 25, 2026, with 1.0 Areas of Professional Practice credit and 1.0 total CLE credit. The format is a webinar with virtual participation.
Program Overview
Event Focus and Format
The session addresses authentication of synthetic media and deepfake evidence in IP and patent disputes. According to NYSBA’s published learning objectives, participants will examine how authentication differs from relevance, hearsay, best-evidence, and expert-reliability questions. The program also considers federal and New York authentication routes for common digital-media exhibits.
Faculty and NYSBA Sponsorship
The faculty are Alexander Paykin, Esq., and Pouya Shafabakhsh, AIGP, CAIC, Principal Judicial Forensic AI Auditor, Co-Founder and Chief AI Governance Officer of Radsam Academy of AI Sovereign Governance. The program is sponsored by NYSBA’s Committee on Continuing Legal Education, Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies, Committee on Technology and the Legal Profession, Committee on Law Practice Management, and Intellectual Property Law Section.
Register through the official NYSBA event page:
Why Digital Authentication Matters
Synthetic Media Changes the Evidentiary Starting Point
The program does not assume that every digital exhibit is unreliable. Instead, it focuses on the foundation supporting a digital item and the information needed to evaluate it. NYSBA’s objectives include using the 2026 New York Court of Appeals decision in Matter of M.S. to recognize foundation and chain-of-custody weaknesses in video evidence.
Preserving the Record Behind the Exhibit
Source, Metadata, Integrity and Transformation
A digital exhibit may carry information about its source, capture process, metadata, integrity, and transformation history. The webinar specifically identifies preservation of this information before it disappears as a learning objective. That emphasis is relevant to lawyers who may later need to explain how an exhibit was obtained, preserved, processed, or challenged.
Understanding Technical Inputs
Hashes, Detector Output and Legal Conclusions
The session will also address what a cryptographic hash can establish and what it cannot. In addition, participants will consider how detector output can be used as a technical input without presenting a probability as a legal conclusion. This distinction helps keep technical evidence within an appropriate evidentiary and analytical framework.
Emerging Evidence Rules
Proposed Rule 707 and Rule 901(c)
NYSBA’s program description expressly includes the current status of proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 and the Rule 901(c) working draft. The stated objective is to discuss these developments without treating either as current law. That careful distinction is important when lawyers evaluate emerging proposals alongside operative evidentiary rules.
Building a Practical Foundation or Challenge
Creating a Concise Record
The final published learning objective is to build a concise foundation or challenge record for a disputed digital exhibit. The webinar is therefore intended to connect authentication doctrine, preservation, technical evidence, and emerging rule developments in a practical one-hour format.
Register through the official NYSBA event page:
I would welcome to exchange insights with AI and Legal Professionals in comments, and if you find this article helpful, I appreciate sharing with your network.
Author: Pouya Shafabakhsh Co-Founder, CAIO & Principal Forensic AI Auditor, Radsam Academy of AI Sovereign Governance. Independent AI governance and forensic-audit analysis. Educational information only; not legal advice.
Would you be opposed to finding your firm's AI gaps before opposing counsel or insurance companies do? I invite you to assess your firm using our AI Risks Calculator. Safely, securely, privately, and confidentially—with no need to enter any information, not even your email address—you can get a comprehensive AI Risks and Liabilities report in just five minutes.
If you have a sensitive file and want to protect it against AI hallucinations, bias, algorithmic discrimination, and AI-assisted risks through an Air-Gapped Shadow AI Audit before court, or if you are involved in a legal dispute related to AI and need a Judicial Forensic AI Audit, at Radsam, we are willing to assist you whether through our human-based services or by providing our in-house solution, the Sovereign Sanctuary Vault. In these cases, I invite you to fill out our Pre-Qualifying Assessment Form. We will review your information, qualifications, and capacity, and will contact you within two business days.
Related Articles
For the governing or strategic frame behind authenticating digital evidence: nysba cle sep 25, Ontario IP Evidence: Trace the File Before Drawing Conclusions explains provenance, authentication, preservation, and evidentiary limits.
To compare the closest operational issue raised by authenticating digital evidence: nysba cle sep 25, AI privilege and verification risks examines confidentiality, vendor access, data location, and architecture boundaries.
For the evidence and reconstruction layer connected to authenticating digital evidence: nysba cle sep 25, Deepfake Evidence in New York Federal Court focuses on provenance, authentication, preservation, and evidentiary limits.
To connect authenticating digital evidence: nysba cle sep 25 with governance or implementation choices, New York Arbitration: Locate AI Records Before the Hearing covers AI record handling, confidentiality, and hearing readiness.
For the next practical decision after authenticating digital evidence: nysba cle sep 25, generative AI and attorney-client privilege provides context on confidentiality, vendor access, data location, and architecture boundaries.
Comments