- Extended the Mata/Park v. Kim doctrine from briefs to expert declarations.
- Struck the declaration in full; did not permit partial reliance on un-fabricated portions.
- Court took particular note that the expert was a sophisticated AI researcher, narrowing the "I didn't know what AI does" excuse.
- Operational signal: filings beyond the brief (declarations, affidavits, exhibits) carry the verification duty.
Kohls v. Ellison.
A litigant's expert declaration that itself contained AI-generated fabricated citations was struck from the record. The court emphasized that an AI-produced declaration carries the same verification duty as an AI-produced brief, and that the duty runs against the lawyer who files the declaration.
What happened. #
In a First Amendment challenge to Minnesota's AI-deepfake election statute, the State submitted an expert declaration. The declaration itself contained citations to academic articles that did not exist. The opposing party documented the fabrications. The court took the matter as the occasion to address AI use in expert testimony rather than only in brief writing.
The holding. #
A litigant's expert declaration that itself contained AI-generated fabricated citations was struck from the record. The court emphasized that an AI-produced declaration carries the same verification duty as an AI-produced brief, and that the duty runs against the lawyer who files the declaration.
The court's reasoning. #
Chief Judge Schiltz applied the same verification duty that Mata and progeny had articulated for briefs. The court held that a declaration filed in support of a litigant's position is part of the same documentary record and the same Rule 11 universe. The filing attorney signs the declaration onto the docket and assumes the verification obligation. The court was unwilling to parse the declaration into salvageable and unsalvageable portions and struck it in full.
Operational implications. #
For firms relying on expert declarations, Kohls establishes that AI use by an expert does not insulate the lawyer who files the declaration. The verification standard is the same as for the brief. Where the expert has used AI in preparing the declaration, the filing attorney must verify any cited authority just as if the lawyer had drafted it directly. In practice, this means a citation-check step on declarations and affidavits, not just on briefs.
Primary sources. #
This is a case brief, not legal advice. Dan Hughes is not an attorney; IXSOR does not provide legal services.