Delano Crossing 2016, LLC v. County of Wright
Minnesota Tax Court, Regular Division · Minn. Tax Ct. · Minnesota bar guidance
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Delano Crossing 2016, LLC v. County of Wright, No. 86-CV-23-2147 (Minn. Tax Ct. May 29, 2025)
- Decided
- May 29, 2025
Summary
Assistant Wright County Attorney Rachel E. Pence filed a summary judgment brief on behalf of Wright County that contained five AI-generated case citations, none of which referred to actual judicial decisions. The County conceded at an en banc hearing that much of the brief was drafted by AI. Sitting en banc, Chief Judge Jane N. Bowman and Judges Bradford S. Delapena and Beverly J. Luther Quast found the conduct violated Rule 11.02(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, rejecting Pence's claim that she had inadvertently filed a draft as not objectively reasonable.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
The court found a Rule 11.02(b) violation but declined to impose sanctions, concluding the show-cause order itself was sufficient deterrence and noting that Rule 11.03(b) does not authorize monetary sanctions for 11.02(b) violations. The court referred the matter to the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board under Rule 2.15(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, transmitting the brief, hearing transcript, show-cause order, both affidavits, and the sanctions order for further review.
Why does Delano Crossing 2016, LLC v. County of Wright matter for law firms using AI?
Delano Crossing matters because it shows a sitting tax court declining to impose monetary sanctions while still escalating the matter to bar discipline, a pattern firms should expect to see more often as courts conclude that public referral, not fines, is the proportionate response to fabricated authority. The order also rejects the “I filed the wrong draft” defense as not objectively reasonable, narrowing a common attempted off-ramp for attorneys caught submitting AI-hallucinated citations.