Digital forensics for attorneys, when your case turns on a device

When your case turns on what is on a phone, a laptop, or in an account

Counsel can retain us when the evidence is digital and the other side will fight over it.

We acquire it with write-blocked imaging and hash verification, document the chain of custody, and authenticate it under FRE 901 and the self-authentication provisions of FRE 902(13)/(14). We document every engagement so the method can be tested. The report records what was collected, how, with which tools and versions, and the hash values.

Whether an exhibit is admitted is the court’s call. Our part is a record that shows how each finding was reached.

The full list of our forensic services for law firms is on the attorneys page.

Related attorney work runs through forensic phone extraction, cybersecurity expert witness testimony, e-discovery and ESI collection, and digital forensics for divorce. See also spoliation in family-law digital evidence.

Some service tracks are offered at a fixed fee. Forensic work for counsel starts with the engagement retainer, and you decide how its hours are spent. Its terms are set out in the engagement letter.

Expert testimony is engaged separately, on its own retainer. Its terms are set out in the engagement letter.

A SleuthX examiner examines the evidence and signs the report.

• A direct line to Quinn, the founder, not a sales pipeline.
• Worked in-house by the examiner who scoped it.
• Explainable findings you can verify, with the methodology shown.

What this means for you

• Written scope before any work. You see a written scope covering deliverables, timeline, and price, and you approve it before we begin. You are never billed for work you did not authorize.
• We commit to findings, not outcomes. We tell you up front what the evidence can and cannot establish. Recovery, attribution, and prosecution are decided by banks, platforms, insurers, and courts. We produce the record they act on, and we put that distinction in writing.
• Every case is investigated, not just scanned. A credentialed examiner reviews every case before findings leave the practice. You get a documented investigation with the hashes, method and tool versions recorded, not a single automated scan and a one-line answer.
• We will tell you if you do not need us. If a free or simpler step would resolve your situation, whether a police report, an IC3 filing, or a platform's own recovery flow, we point you there first.

The process, end to end

Most forensic vendors describe their process in a sentence.

Opposing counsel will examine yours for an hour.

This is the workflow every engagement runs, stage by stage, so you know what the record will show before you retain us.

1. Identification and scoping. Which devices, accounts, and data sources plausibly hold the evidence; what the preservation obligations already are; what can be acquired lawfully and with whose authorization. You get a written scope before any acquisition begins.
2. Preservation and intake. Chain-of-custody documentation starts at intake, with tamper-evident packaging for shipped devices, a custody form signed at every handoff, and a preservation letter template for custodians when counsel wants one.
3. Write-blocked acquisition with two-hash verification. Devices are imaged behind a write blocker; an acquisition hash is computed when the image is taken and a verification hash is computed on the working copy before analysis, so the record shows the copy analyzed is the copy acquired. The methodology follows NIST SP 800-86 and SWGDE practice. Where a matter requires Cellebrite, Magnet AXIOM, or a similar extraction platform, we engage those platforms through our partner network.
4. Analysis at the artifact level. Findings are tied to named file-system metadata, application databases, and account and sync logs, documented precisely enough that another examiner could retrace the path. That reproducibility is what a reliability challenge actually tests.
5. Report. Written to the structure Rule 702 examinations follow: data relied on, method applied, how the method was applied to the data, and conclusions stated with method-bounded confidence that go no further than what the artifacts support. See what goes into a forensic report.
6. Testimony support. Declarations, FRE 902 certifications, deposition preparation, and trial support. Testimony is arranged per matter, after we confirm it can be given in your court.

Authentication under FRE 901, and self-authentication under 902(13)/(14)

Digital evidence gets admitted the same way everything else does: a foundation.

FRE 901(b) lists the routes of witness testimony, distinctive characteristics, and process-or-system evidence.

For electronic records there is a faster path: under FRE 902(13) a certification of a qualified person can authenticate records generated by a process or system, and under FRE 902(14) the same mechanism covers data copied from a device, storage medium, or file, and the committee note names hash-value comparison as the canonical digital-identification process.

That is not paperwork we bolt on afterward.

Our workflow captures the acquisition and verification hashes a Rule 902(14) certification requires, and our examiner prepares those certifications for counsel.

Notice matters: the rule’s advance-notice procedure means the certification should be planned with your disclosure calendar, not the week before trial.

For the foundations themselves, start with authenticating text messages under FRE 901/902 and chain of custody for litigators.

What 902(13) and 902(14) do not do

Honesty about the limits is part of the foundation.

A 902(13)/(14) certification settles authenticity of the copy or the process, establishing that the data is what it purports to be and the copy matches the original.

It does not resolve hearsay, relevance, or authorship: a certified extraction proves the messages came off that phone intact, not who typed them.

And whether a given examiner is a “qualified person” is decided by the court on the record before it, matter by matter.

902(14) helps with authentication, and admission is still the court’s decision.

The December 2023 amendment to Rule 702

Rule 702 was amended effective December 1, 2023.

In federal court, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires the party offering an expert to show, more likely than not, that the expert is qualified, that the opinion will help the court or jury, and that it rests on sufficient facts or data and reliably applies reliable methods. The court decides. Our report sets out the facts and data, the method, the tools and their versions, and how the method was applied, which is the record counsel uses to make that showing.

The committee note speaks directly to this field, saying forensic experts should avoid assertions of absolute or one hundred percent certainty.

That is how our reports were already written: conclusions carry the confidence the method supports, stated so the court can see where the data ends and the inference begins.

If the expert you are vetting states conclusions without bounds, the 2023 note is now the cross-examination script against them.

Background: how to vet and qualify a forensic expert.

Consulting expert or testifying expert, and why the choice comes first

Two different roles are on the table, and naming the one you want at the outset shapes everything after it. A consulting expert works behind your privilege, pressure-tests the opposing report, and tells you what the data will not support before you commit to a position. A testifying expert does that same work knowing every note may be produced and every opinion defended on the stand.

FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) requires a testifying expert's written report to state the opinions and their basis, the facts or data considered, the exhibits, the expert's qualifications and publications from the previous 10 years, the cases with trial or deposition testimony in the previous 4 years, and the compensation.

Retaining a digital forensics consulting role first, and converting to testimony only if the case needs a witness, protects you twice. You learn what the evidence actually shows while the question is still cheap to ask, and you avoid putting a witness behind a theory the artifacts do not carry.

If a matter does reach testimony, the same examiner carries it forward, so the chain of custody and the method do not change hands mid-case. Ask any digital forensics consultant you are considering which of the two roles they are being retained for, and whether they can hold both without rewriting their conclusions.

Spoliation and preservation

When the question is whether the other side deleted evidence, the analysis changes shape: wiping and deletion timestamps, wiping-tool traces, and mass-deletion patterns in file-system metadata are identifiable where present, and FRCP 37(e) frames what a court can do about ESI that should have been preserved and was lost.

That work has its own service page: spoliation forensic analysis.

For the preservation side, send custodians a litigation-hold template that actually covers a phone.

How an engagement begins

1. Free 30-minute consultation. NDA-protected. Direct conversation, no sales process.
2. Scoped engagement. Written proposal with defined deliverables and pricing, a fixed fee where it applies and hourly with milestone caps for open-ended investigations.
3. Examination and report. A written report with the hash values, the method, the tools and their versions, and the exhibits.

We examine only a device you own. Before we start, you sign a form stating that you own it. Other legal authority, such as a court order, is covered in our terms.

Why this work matters

In litigation the methodology behind a finding gets tested as hard as the finding itself. The method behind it is documented for cross-examination and a Daubert challenge.

Quinn holds 9 active certifications across GIAC, a methodology trusted by Fortune 50 enterprises, defense contractors, and the attorneys who refer to us.