Deepfake Evidence in Family Court: Detection and Sanctions

Jonathan D. Steele
Jonathan D. Steele | Beermann LLP

Jonathan D. Steele is a Divorce and Family Law Partner at Beermann LLP in Chicago. His practice concentrates on high net worth dissolution, contested allocation of parental responsibilities, orders of protection, and complex valuation disputes. He has appeared before the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Supreme Court, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, handles matters pro hac vice outside Illinois, and has taken more than one hundred depositions, including of expert and forensic witnesses. Jonathan pairs his litigation practice with a working cybersecurity practice and leads Beermann's internal artificial intelligence committee.

Live Video-Broadcast: July 28, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

It's never been easier to fake a damning text, clone a voice, or doctor a video — and family court is where it does the most damage. Judges in custody and divorce fights often have to act fast, in emergency hearings, on the strength of a screenshot or a recording. If a fabricated one slips through, it can shape who gets the kids.

The rules for proving what's real haven't caught up yet. The federal courts have a new rule for AI evidence in the works, but it isn't in effect and won't be for a while, so for now you're still working with the authentication rules you already know — and with detection tools that are far from foolproof. This session walks through how to tell real from fake, and how to handle the evidence from the moment it comes in — intake, preservation, chain of custody, and discovery — so it holds up when the other side pushes back.

Then it turns to what you can do when you catch a fake: the ways to ask the court for sanctions — contempt, discovery sanctions, having fees shifted to the other side — how to build a record that gets your forensic costs paid back, and the federal options for fighting back against fake intimate images under the TAKE IT DOWN Act.

What Will You Learn

Learn the federal and state authentication framework for AI-fabricated evidence in family court, the sanctions vehicles available in state family courts, and how the TAKE IT DOWN Act applies.

What Will You Gain

Gain a structured intake, preservation, and discovery protocol, the procedural vehicles for sanctions, a motion record that supports fee and cost recovery, and the federal takedown and civil remedies.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Threat landscape
    Identify why family court dockets are uniquely exposed to fabricated evidence.
  • Authentication framework
    Apply Rules 901 and 902 and state analogs to suspected AI evidence.
  • Detection science
    Evaluate detector generalization and content provenance limits.
  • Evidence hygiene
    Run intake, preservation, and chain of custody protocols.
  • Sanctions vehicles
    Select appropriate sanctions vehicles, including contempt, discovery sanctions, and fee-shifting statutes.
  • Intimate imagery
    Apply the TAKE IT DOWN Act takedown and civil remedies.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: July 28, 2026

  • 1:00 pm – 3:10 pm Eastern
  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Central
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Mountain
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Jonathan D. Steele, Partner | Beermann LLP

Jonathan D. Steele is a Divorce and Family Law Partner at Beermann LLP in Chicago. His practice concentrates on high net worth dissolution, contested allocation of parental responsibilities, orders of protection, and complex valuation disputes. He has appeared before the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Supreme Court, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, handles matters pro hac vice outside Illinois, and has taken more than one hundred depositions, including of expert and forensic witnesses. Jonathan pairs his litigation practice with a working cybersecurity practice and leads Beermann’s internal artificial intelligence committee.

  • Education & Credentials

Jonathan earned his J.D. from The John Marshall Law School and his B.A. from Indiana University. He is licensed in Illinois and admitted to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He is a Certified Financial Litigator and holds multiple cybersecurity and privacy credentials, including CompTIA Security+, ISC2 Certified in Cybersecurity, Cisco Ethical Hacker, and privacy law training from the University of Pennsylvania.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Jonathan has been recognized in Best Lawyers in America (2026), as a Leading Lawyer by the Leading Lawyers Network (2026), and among the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s 40 Under Forty Attorneys to Watch (2025). He is the founder of Steele Fortress LLC, a cybersecurity and privacy consulting firm, and leads Beermann’s internal artificial intelligence committee.

  • Professional Involvement

Jonathan is a frequent author and presenter on the intersection of technology and family law, including for the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education.

  • Experience

Jonathan concentrates on high net worth dissolution, contested allocation of parental responsibilities, orders of protection, and complex valuation disputes. His cases routinely turn on digital evidence, from hidden cryptocurrency to manipulated media. He has taken more than one hundred depositions, including of expert and forensic witnesses, and has appeared before the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Supreme Court, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Detecting AI-Fabricated Evidence in Contested Custody and Divorce Cases | 1:00pm – 2:00pm

Map the authentication landscape as of mid-2026, including the federal Advisory Committee’s May 2026 deferral of proposed Rule 707, the New York Court of Appeals’ 2026 video authentication reversal, Louisiana Act 250, detection science, and evidence hygiene protocol.

BREAK | 2:00pm – 2:10pm

SESSION 2 – Sanctions Motions and Fee Awards for AI-Fabricated Evidence | 2:10pm – 3:10pm

Examine sanctions options in family courts, including contempt, discovery sanctions, and fee-shifting statutes, while exploring Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, and the “Liar’s Dividend” in addressing AI-fabricated evidence.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
Employment Liability in Class Litigation
Employment Liability in Class Litigation Tue, June 23, 2026
Live Webcast
The AI Chatbot Wiretap Class Action Wave
The AI Chatbot Wiretap Class Action Wave Fri, June 26, 2026
Live Webcast
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit Mon, June 29, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
Playing Defense at 30(b)(6) Depositions (2026 Edition)
Playing Defense at 30(b)(6) Depositions (2026 Edition) Mon, June 29, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
Creating a Trial Notebook: From A-Z (2025 Edition)
Creating a Trial Notebook: From A-Z (2025 Edition) Tue, June 30, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
A, B, C’s of Revocable and Irrevocable Trusts
A, B, C’s of Revocable and Irrevocable Trusts Tue, June 30, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
Branding for Firms: Ethics & Strategy
Branding for Firms: Ethics & Strategy Thu, July 16, 2026
Live Webcast