Kohls v. Ellison
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · D. Minn. · Minnesota bar guidance
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Kohls v. Ellison, No. 24-cv-3754 (LMP/DLM), ECF No. 46 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025) (order granting motion to exclude Hancock declaration)
- Decided
- January 10, 2025
Summary
The Minnesota Attorney General's office submitted an expert declaration by Stanford Professor Jeff Hancock in support of Minnesota's deepfake statute. The declaration contained citations to nonexistent academic articles, and Professor Hancock acknowledged using GPT-4o. Judge Laura M. Provinzino excluded the declaration and suggested that an "inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" under Rule 11 "may now require attorneys to ask their witnesses whether they have used AI in drafting their declarations and what they have done to verify any AI-generated content."
- AI tool:
- AI (via expert declaration from Prof. Jeff Hancock)
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
Expert declaration excluded; no monetary sanctions imposed. The court reminded counsel that Rule 11 imposes a 'personal, nondelegable responsibility' to validate the papers filed. The preliminary injunction was denied in a separate order (ECF No. 45), which the Eighth Circuit affirmed (No. 25-1300, Feb. 9, 2026); that appeal did not address the order excluding the Hancock declaration.
Why does Kohls v. Ellison matter for law firms using AI?
Kohls v. Ellison extends the AI verification duty beyond attorney-drafted work product to expert declarations. Before Kohls, the sanctions cases addressed attorneys who themselves used AI. Here the attorneys relied on a credentialed expert. The court suggested that reliance is not enough and that counsel may need to ask. For Minnesota litigators, and for anyone practicing in federal court, the practical takeaway is that expert-engagement workflows now need an AI-use inquiry and a documented verification step.