---
title: "Minnesota: AI rules for lawyers"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/minnesota"
type: "jurisdiction"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "US-MN"
kind: "state"
country: "US"
parent: "United States"
last_checked: "2026-10-31"
as_of: "2026-10-31"
last_reviewed: "2026-11-03"
---
# Minnesota: AI rules for lawyers
> Minnesota: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here.
Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/minnesota
Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt
## 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 31 October 2026.
## Telling the court and the client
**Tell the court:** Unclear
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.
- [GenAI FAQ](https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf)
**Tell the client:** Unclear
Same basis and sources as above.
## Last checked
Last checked 31 October 2026.
## 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
#### GenAI FAQ
- Type: Court policy
- Issuer: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
- Date on page: 1 October 2025
- Effective date: 1 October 2025
- Status: 1 October 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf
Federal court FAQ for litigants in the District of Minnesota. It states the court does not currently require disclosure of AI use in court filings, but warns that other jurisdictions do. It reminds filers that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 26(g) they are ultimately responsible for the accuracy and sufficiency of work product produced with generative AI.
Key points:
- States: 'The District of Minnesota does not currently require disclosure of AI use in court filings.'
- Practice pointers: avoid entering privileged or confidential information into a tool that may retain it, and check the tool's terms of use and security statement.
- Confirm AI-supplied citations are valid, not superseded or overruled, and not taken out of context.
- GenAI must be used consistently with ethical obligations, the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure (including Rule 11 and 26(g)) and any protective orders.
#### Delano Crossing 2016, LLC v. County of Wright, Order on Sanctions (AI-generated case citations)
- Type: Judgment
- Issuer: Minnesota Tax Court, Regular Division
- Date on page: 29 May 2025
- Effective date: 29 May 2025
- Status: 29 May 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Delano_Crossing_2016_v._County_of_Wright_Minnesota_Tax_Court_29_May_2025.pdf
En banc order of the Minnesota Tax Court. The respondent, Wright County, through an assistant county attorney who signed and filed the brief, submitted a summary-judgment brief containing five AI-generated case citations that do not refer to real decisions. The court held this violated Rule 11.02(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, declined to order sanctions, and referred the matter to the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board. The copy read is a third-party hosted Westlaw print (2025 WL 1539250), not the court's own web page, hence medium confidence.
Key points:
- Conclusion of law: including AI-generated case citations in a brief served and filed with the tax court violated Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02(b).
- The court said Rule 11 imposes an affirmative duty to investigate the legal underpinnings of a filing, and that calling the fake citations a 'mistake' was not objectively reasonable.
- The court said that if an attorney submits arguments resting on fake legal authority it will generally deny the motion summarily; here it declined further sanctions, but stressed it can sanction any attorney or self-represented litigant who presents fictitious citations.
- It referred the matter to the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, citing Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 and 3.3(a)(1) and Minn. Code of Jud. Conduct r. 2.15(B) (duty to inform the appropriate authority).
- This is a decision in one case, not a general court rule; it does not impose an AI disclosure requirement.
## Sources
- U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota: [GenAI FAQ](https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Minnesota Tax Court, Regular Division: [Delano Crossing 2016, LLC v. County of Wright, Order on Sanctions (AI-generated case citations)](https://websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Delano_Crossing_2016_v._County_of_Wright_Minnesota_Tax_Court_29_May_2025.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Minnesota Legislature (Revisor of Statutes)](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/HF/5155/versions/latest/) · last checked 31 October 2026
## Key facts
- Kind: State
- Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0
- AI instruments recorded: 2
*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*