1 October 2025; start date not confirmedPractice noteU.S. District Court, District of MinnesotaLast checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Minnesota: AI rules for lawyers
Minnesota, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
No statewide Minnesota state-court rule or order was found requiring lawyers to disclose or certify AI use in filings. This is a negative search result from a limited search, not something a source says.
Rule 11.02(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure applies to AI-assisted filings: the Minnesota Tax Court held that a county attorney's brief with five AI-generated, non-existent case citations violated it, said that calling this a "mistake" was not objectively reasonable, and referred the matter to the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board.
In the federal District of Minnesota, disclosure of AI use in filings is not currently required, but filers remain responsible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 26(g) for accuracy and should verify every citation.
Avoid putting privileged or confidential information into a tool that may retain it; check the tool's terms and security statement.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtUnclear
Court disclosure: no rule found (D. Minn. states it does not currently require disclosure of AI use in filings; no state court rule found). Client disclosure/consent: no rule found.
- Tell the clientUnclear
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Minnesota in the last 12 months
No new or changed AI rules recorded for Minnesota in the last 12 months.
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
29 May 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceMinnesota Tax Court, Regular DivisionLast checked 31 October 2026
Sources
- U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota: GenAI FAQ · last checked
- Minnesota Tax Court, Regular Division: Delano Crossing 2016, LLC v. County of Wright, Order on Sanctions (AI-generated case citations) · last checked
- Minnesota Legislature (Revisor of Statutes) · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.