The Minnesota State Bar Association issued its AI Guidance for Minnesota Lawyers in September 2024, making it one of the states with formal direction on attorney AI use. The guidance addresses billing, confidentiality, and disclosure -- the three issues every firm needs answered before deploying AI at scale.
Minnesota's guidance takes a practical approach. It does not ban AI use or impose onerous requirements. Instead, it establishes guardrails that align with existing ethics obligations while acknowledging that AI is already embedded in legal practice. For firms operating in Minnesota, this guidance provides the clearest available framework for responsible adoption.
What the Bar Says
The AI Guidance for Minnesota Lawyers (September 2024) addresses AI through the lens of existing ethics rules rather than creating new obligations. The guidance confirms that Rules 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, and 5.3 all apply to AI use and provides specific interpretive direction.
Key holdings: attorneys must understand the AI tools they use (competence), cannot blindly rely on AI output (supervision), must protect client data from AI exposure (confidentiality), and must bill AI-assisted work fairly (fees). The guidance explicitly prohibits inputting confidential information into consumer AI tools -- a stronger position than some other states have taken.
Billing Implications
Minnesota's guidance states that attorneys must not charge for AI use at attorney rates without justification. This is a direct prohibition on the most common billing abuse: running a client matter through an AI tool and billing the AI's processing time at $300-500/hour.
The guidance applies Rule 1.5's reasonable fee standard with AI-specific interpretation. If AI reduces the time needed for a task, the fee should reflect that reduction. Attorneys can still bill for their time reviewing, editing, and validating AI output -- but the AI's contribution must be priced appropriately. This aligns with the approach taken by Colorado and Iowa.
Confidentiality Rules
Minnesota takes a strong position on confidentiality: the guidance prohibits inputting confidential client information into consumer AI tools. This effectively rules out using free versions of ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude for any work involving client data.
Attorneys must evaluate AI vendors' data handling practices before use. The guidance requires understanding whether AI tools retain, train on, or share data input by users. Enterprise-tier tools with data protection agreements may satisfy these requirements. The burden is on the attorney to verify -- not assume -- that an AI tool meets confidentiality standards under Rule 1.6.
What's Still Unclear
Minnesota's guidance recommends disclosure for significant AI use in work product but does not define "significant." Is a quick AI-assisted legal research query significant? What about AI-generated first drafts that are substantially rewritten? The threshold remains subjective.
The guidance also does not address court-specific disclosure requirements. Minnesota state courts have not adopted local rules mandating AI disclosure in filings, though federal courts in Minnesota could do so independently. The guidance is also silent on whether AI tool subscriptions are billable expenses that can be passed through to clients.
The Bottom Line: Minnesota's September 2024 guidance prohibits consumer AI for confidential work and requires billing transparency -- a practical framework that gives firms clear boundaries.
AI-Assisted Research. This piece was researched and written with AI assistance, reviewed and edited by Manu Ayala. For deeper takes and the perspective behind the research, follow me on LinkedIn or email me directly.