Compare

FRE 702 vs ABA Model Rules: how they differ, side by side

How FRE 702 and ABA Model Rules differ: what each is, who owes it, when it applies and who enforces it.

FRE 702Binding in federal court proceedings

ABA Model RulesModel rules; binding only as adopted by each state's highest court

Checked21 Oct 2026

01 / Side by side

FRE 702 and ABA Model Rules, side by side

	FRE 702	ABA Model Rules
What it is	court rule	other
Jurisdiction	United States (federal courts)	United States (states adopting the Model Rules)
Legal force	Binding in federal court proceedings	Model rules; binding only as adopted by each state's highest court
Status	In force	In force
Who owes it	Parties offering expert testimony in federal court, and the judges who decide whether to admit it.	Lawyers and law firms licensed in jurisdictions that have adopted versions of the ABA Model Rules (nearly every US state).
Enforcement	Federal trial judges as gatekeepers exclude non-compliant testimony; appellate review for abuse of discretion. No monetary penalties.	State supreme courts and their disciplinary bodies; sanctions range from private admonition to disbarment. Courts separately sanction filings under rules such as FRCP 11.

02 / FRE 702

What FRE 702 requires

When an expert relies on an AI or machine-learning tool, the court can ask whether the tool's method is reliable and was reliably applied: validation, error rates, data and reproducibility. A proposed Rule 707 to extend these factors to machine output offered without an expert was not recommended for approval in May 2026 and remains under study.

01Show the court, more likely than not, that each Rule 702 requirement is met; weight arguments do not substitute for this showing.
02Base the opinion on sufficient facts or data.
03Use reliable principles and methods, including known or potential error rates where available.
04Show the opinion reflects a reliable application of the method to the case facts, without overstating certainty.

03 / ABA Model Rules

What ABA Model Rules requires

No Model Rule names AI, but the 2012 technology amendments and Opinion 512 make clear the existing duties cover generative AI. Filing unverified AI output has led to court sanctions, such as Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

01Rule 1.1 and Comment 8: understand the benefits and risks of AI tools used, and verify their output.
02Rule 1.4: consult clients about the means used, including AI use that affects fees or significant decisions.
03Rule 1.6(c): make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information entered into AI tools.
04Rule 3.3: make no false statements of law or fact to a tribunal, including AI-generated citations, and correct any made.
05Rule 5.1: partners and managers must have firm measures, such as AI-use policies, ensuring lawyers comply.
06Rule 5.3: supervise nonlawyer assistance, including AI vendors and tools, so conduct is compatible with the lawyer's duties.

Optional evidence · where Planisphere fits

Keep a record anyone can check

When your team meets a duty, Planisphere can seal the event it reports as a receipt.

01 · Your teamRecord the event

A disclosure shown, a review signed, a model change approved: the event your system reports.

02 · PlanisphereSeal it

The event becomes a sealed receipt, dated and attributed to whoever is signed in.

03 · AnyoneCheck it

Paste the receipt into Verify. No account or key.

A record supports your compliance evidence process. It is not a legal finding or a certification. Systems that call Planisphere's gate API can also hold or refuse an action before it runs.

SOURCES