Minnesota

informal

Summary

Minnesota has an MSBA AI Working Group report (adopted June/July 2024) proposing an AI Sandbox for access-to-justice LLM tools, informal OLPR guidance from the LPRB Director (September 2024 Bench + Bar article), a D. Minn. Generative AI FAQ (October 2025, informational only), and a significant federal case (Kohls v. Ellison, D. Minn. January 2025) where the court struck an expert declaration containing AI-hallucinated citations. No formal numbered ethics opinion exists from the LPRB. AI consumer disclosure legislation is pending but not enacted.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

Rule 1.1
Rule 1.5
Rule 1.6
Rule 3.3
Rule 5.1
Rule 5.3
Rule 8.4

Carrier Implications

Informed consent documentation for AI data use is now an affirmative obligation per OLPR guidance, not a best practice. LPL insurers may treat non-verification as a failure of "professional services," potentially supporting coverage denial. Undisclosed AI intake chatbots could expose firms to UDAP liability not covered by standard LPL policies.

This summary is informational only. Verify the primary source before relying on this entry. Bar rules differ meaningfully by state. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Minnesota has no formal LPRB numbered ethics opinion on AI. The MSBA AI Working Group report (adopted by the MSBA Assembly in June 2024 and the Board of Governors in July 2024) found existing Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct already address LLM use, and proposed creation of an AI Sandbox for access-to-justice LLM tools. The OLPR Director Susan M. Humiston’s September 2024 Bench + Bar article is the operative practical guidance: informed consent is required before inputting client data into most third-party LLM tools, and generic boilerplate engagement language is insufficient.

Kohls v. Ellison (D. Minn. January 10, 2025, Judge Laura M. Provinzino; affirmed 8th Cir. February 9, 2026) struck the entire expert declaration of Prof. Hancock for containing fabricated AI-generated citations and held that attorneys possess “a personal, nondelegable responsibility” to validate filed documents. The court extended the supervision duty to expert witnesses, suggesting an “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” under Rule 11 may now require attorneys to ask experts whether they used AI and how outputs were verified. The D. Minn. Generative AI FAQ (October 1, 2025) does not require disclosure but reminds attorneys that competence and candor obligations apply to AI-assisted work product.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Minnesota firm: The OLPR Director’s Bench + Bar article is the operative guidance: informed consent is required before inputting client data into most third-party LLM tools, and generic boilerplate consent is insufficient. Kohls v. Ellison extends the attorney supervision duty to expert witnesses.

Last verified: April 24, 2026