AI rules by state · MN
AI Rules for Lawyers in Minnesota 2026
- AI disclosure required?
- Case-by-case
- Governing guidance
- MSBA AI Working Group (2024)
- Sanctions on record
- Nuvola v. Wright (2025), $1,000
- Competence rule
- Rule 1.1
- AI / technology CLE
- No tech or AI requirement
Quick answer
Minnesota does not require lawyers to disclose AI use. The Minnesota State Bar's AI working group concluded that the existing Rules of Professional Conduct already govern AI, and the lawyer remains responsible for verifying AI output. Minnesota courts have begun to fine litigants for filing fabricated AI citations.
Ethics guidance
Minnesota State Bar Association, AI Working Group Report and Recommendations
Adopted 2024
Minnesota's reference point is the report of the Minnesota State Bar Association's working group on artificial intelligence, adopted in 2024.
The working group concluded that the existing Rules of Professional Conduct already address AI, so no new rule was needed. It directs lawyers to maintain competence, verify AI output, protect confidentiality, and update engagement letters to obtain informed consent before entering client information into a tool.
Source: Minnesota State Bar Association, AI working group report
Disclosure rules
Are Minnesota lawyers required to disclose AI use?
Minnesota imposes no statewide duty to disclose AI use. The working group addresses client communication and consent through the existing rules, advising lawyers to address AI in the engagement and before entering client data into a tool.
Court-level requirements vary, so counsel should review the assigned judge's rules in each matter.
Source: Minnesota State Bar Association, AI working group report
Sanctions on record
AI hallucination sanctions in Minnesota
Minnesota courts have begun to sanction fabricated AI citations. In Nuvola, LLC v. Wright (Hennepin County District Court, 2025), the court imposed a $1,000 sanction over a filing that cited nonexistent AI-generated cases. Other Minnesota matters have drawn fines and disciplinary referrals.
Competence duty
The competence rule and AI (Rule 1.1)
The competence duty in Minnesota is Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1. The bar's AI working group reads it to require a working understanding of any AI tool and verification of its output.
Source: Minnesota State Bar Association, AI working group report
CLE requirements
Continuing legal education in Minnesota
Minnesota requires 45 CLE credits every three years, including ethics credit. There is no AI or technology-specific requirement as of June 2026, though AI programs can count toward the total.
Source: Minnesota CLE, requirements
How to stay compliant
A practical checklist for Minnesota lawyers
Minnesota courts have already fined litigants for fabricated AI citations, so verification is the duty that matters most here.
Review the assigned judge's standing order and the court's local rules at the start of every matter. AI disclosure obligations generally sit at the court and judge level rather than in a single statewide rule.
Verify every citation and quotation before filing, and read the underlying authority. Most AI sanctions have resulted from citations the lawyer never personally verified.
Do not enter confidential client information into public AI tools without confirming how the tool handles data and, where there is material confidentiality risk, obtaining the client's informed consent.
Inform the client when AI use materially affects the matter, and honor any client instruction that limits AI use.
Bill only for time actually spent drafting prompts and reviewing output, not for time the tool saved.
Keep any required technology or AI continuing-education credit current, and treat AI competence as part of your duty under the competence rule.
When evaluating tools, look for citation grounding that ties output to verifiable authority, a vendor commitment not to train on client data, and audit trails. These reduce risk, but they do not replace the lawyer's own review.
Frequently asked
Minnesota AI rules: common questions
Legal AI rules in nearby states
Practising across state lines? Compare Minnesota’s rules with its neighbors.
This page is general information, not legal advice. Rules change, and the obligations that apply to your matter depend on your court, your judge, and your facts. Verify the current rules with the Minnesota state bar and the assigned court before you rely on anything here. Last verified June 2026.
Built for lawyers who have to verify everything
Irys grounds its output in verifiable authority, keeps client data out of training, and maintains a record of the work. See how it fits your practice.
Book a Demo