Minnesota: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Minnesota firm: No formal LPRB numbered opinion governs AI use, but the OLPR Director’s September 2024 Bench + Bar article is the operative standard of care, and Kohls v. Ellison (D. Minn. Jan. 2025) treats verification of AI-generated content as a personal, nondelegable Rule 11 duty extending to expert witnesses. Informed consent before inputting client data into third-party LLMs is required, and generic boilerplate engagement language is expressly insufficient. Firms that cannot show citation verification, vendor diligence, and matter-specific AI consent are exposed under Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, and 5.3 today.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification checklist for court filings, and AI vendor due diligence records.

OLPR Director Guidance: “Ethics Guidance for Generative AI Use”

Citation: Susan M. Humiston, Ethics Guidance for Generative AI Use, Bench + Bar of Minnesota (September 2024). Authored by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR).

Status: Informal practice advisory. Not a formal LPRB opinion and not binding. Minnesota courts and disciplinary bodies treat OLPR Director articles as persuasive interpretive guidance.

What it requires (mandatory language)

• A lawyer must have a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations of any generative AI tool before use. This is an ongoing, not one-time, obligation under Rule 1.1, Comment 8.
• A lawyer must obtain the client’s informed consent before inputting client information into most third-party generative AI tools under Rule 1.6.
• Generic, boilerplate engagement-agreement language is insufficient to constitute informed consent for AI data processing.
• Before use, a lawyer must review the terms of service of any AI tool, paying attention to retention and training-data practices.
• Under Rules 3.3 and 8.4, a lawyer bears full responsibility for the accuracy of AI-generated content submitted to tribunals.

What it recommends (“should” language)

• Whether generative AI use is permitted should be the subject of a written firm or office policy.
• Training should be provided where AI tools are used.
• Attorneys should understand whether outside vendors or service providers are themselves employing generative AI within client-matter workflows under Rule 5.3.

Notable gaps

The article does not address AI disclosure to courts and does not address billing AI costs under Rule 1.5. It also does not draw a line between AI uses that require client disclosure generally and uses that require disclosure only when client data is input into a third-party tool.

MSBA AI Working Group Report

The MSBA AI Working Group Report was adopted by the MSBA Assembly in June 2024. The Board of Governors adopted it unanimously in July 2024. The Report is policy guidance, not a formal opinion or rule amendment. Three findings drive its conclusions. First, the Working Group concluded that Minnesota’s existing Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.1 Comment 8, 1.5, 1.6, 5.1, and 5.3) already address LLM use and that no new rules were needed. Second, today’s LLMs effectively obliterate the line between permissible “legal information” and regulated “legal advice.” Third, engagement letters need updating to secure informed consent before inputting client data into third-party LLMs. The Working Group also proposed a regulatory AI Sandbox for access-to-justice tools focused initially on housing and immigration. In August 2024 the MSBA AI Standing Committee was formed.

What federal courts in Minnesota require for AI use in filings

On October 1, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issued a Generative AI FAQ. The FAQ is informational, not a binding standing order or local rule, and does not impose a court-wide AI disclosure or certification requirement. It acknowledges that AI responses may be out of date, plausible but inaccurate, or biased, and reminds attorneys that competence and candor obligations apply to AI-assisted work product. Individual D. Minn. judges may have separate standing orders not captured in the court-wide FAQ. Firms should review each assigned judge’s individual standing orders before filing. The operative federal default remains Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

What Minnesota state courts require for AI use in filings

No Minnesota state-court AI disclosure rule applies to attorneys. No Minnesota Supreme Court AI-specific rule amendment has been adopted as of April 2026, and no Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District or other state-court standing order has been identified. The Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct govern, with Rule 1.1 Comment 8 (technology competence, effective March 1, 2015), Rule 1.6 Comment 17 (data safeguards), and Rule 5.3 (vendor supervision) carrying the substantive load.

Kohls v. Ellison (D. Minn. 2025)

Kohls v. Ellison, No. 24-cv-3754 (LMP/DLM), 2025 WL 66514 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025) (Provinzino, J.), affirmed by the Eighth Circuit on February 9, 2026. The Minnesota Attorney General’s office submitted an expert declaration by Prof. Hancock containing fabricated, AI-generated citations to nonexistent academic articles. The court struck the entire declaration as unreliable and held that attorneys possess “a personal, nondelegable responsibility” to validate filed documents. The court suggested that an “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 may now require attorneys to ask expert witnesses whether they used AI in drafting declarations and what they did to verify AI-generated content. No monetary sanctions were imposed; exclusion of the expert testimony was the operative consequence.

What AI-related rules are pending in Minnesota?

S.F. 1886 (94th Legislature, 2025-2026), with related companion bills, would require businesses to disclose when a consumer is communicating with AI rather than a human. The bill would also require an option to communicate with a human. Civil penalties run up to $5,000,000 per violation. Plaintiffs would have a private right of action for up to $1,000 in statutory damages. The bill is pending and not enacted as of April 2026 and is not attorney-specific. If enacted, a Minnesota law firm operating a client-facing AI intake or Q&A chatbot would need to disclose the AI nature of the chatbot. Undisclosed intake chatbots could expose the firm to UDAP-style liability not covered by standard LPL policies.

How do malpractice carriers in Minnesota treat AI use?

No Minnesota malpractice carrier has published explicit AI-specific underwriting guidance in materials reviewed for this entry. Under Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.3, and 3.3, the OLPR Director’s Bench + Bar article establishes the de facto standard of care. Failure to verify AI-generated content is the most likely trigger for malpractice exposure, sharpened in the federal context by Kohls v. Ellison. LPL insurers may treat non-verification as a failure of “professional services.”

What does my Minnesota malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

No Minnesota malpractice carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The substantive standard the carrier or broker will reference is the OLPR Director’s article, supported by ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) cited there as instructive, and Kohls v. Ellison for the federal verification duty. Plan on producing the following. A written firm AI use policy. AI vendor due diligence records. An updated engagement letter AI consent clause that is matter-specific rather than boilerplate. Citation verification records for court filings. An expert-witness AI inquiry record for matters with retained experts. Confirm application items directly with the broker.

What documentation should a Minnesota firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering approved tools, prohibited tools, what client data may be input, required verification steps, and internal violation reporting. Per OLPR, a written firm policy is the supervisory anchor under Rule 5.3.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification checklist for AI-assisted court filings, including an affirmative inquiry to retained experts about AI use and their verification procedures. Kohls v. Ellison treats this verification as a personal, nondelegable Rule 11 duty.
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter AI consent clause that is matter-specific and plain-language, not boilerplate. Per OLPR, boilerplate consent is insufficient under Rule 1.6.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) AI vendor due diligence records for each tool: terms of service review, data retention and training-data posture, and a documented conclusion on appropriateness for client-confidential information. Required by Rule 1.6 Comment 17 and Rule 5.3.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records showing competence in AI capabilities, hallucination risk, and firm policy. Supports Rule 1.1 Comment 8.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol covering associate, staff, and outside-vendor AI use under Rule 5.3, including whether outside vendors are themselves using generative AI in client-matter workflows.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Per-matter AI use notes and client confidentiality consent capturing which tools were used, what data was input, and that matter-specific informed consent was obtained where required.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check at the opening of each federal matter, since individual D. Minn. judges may have standing orders separate from the court-wide FAQ.
3. (Owner: billing partner) Billing transparency records documenting that AI tool costs were treated as overhead or as disclosed disbursements, and that time billed reflects actual attorney supervision time under Rule 1.5.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The monthly update covers new resources as they ship.