--- title: "New Mexico: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/new-mexico" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-NM" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # New Mexico: AI rules for lawyers > New Mexico: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/new-mexico Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers The State Bar's Formal Opinion 2024-004 says a New Mexico lawyer may use generative AI but must do so responsibly; it is advisory only, not binding. Bill only actual time spent; pass on tool costs only if the client is told in writing beforehand. Before using generative AI, lawyers with managerial authority must put AI policies in place and train lawyers and staff. Check each court's and each federal judge's rules. In the federal District of New Mexico, one judge's standing order requires disclosure and certification in filings; the court's May 2025 bulletin prohibits filings with non-existent citations. As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Varies by court Client disclosure/consent: depends. The Bar opinion says discussion with the client may be needed under Rule 16-104 if AI plays a significant role in final products, the client asks, or confidential data must be disclosed; informed consent for inputting confidential data in appropriate cases. - [Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004](https://sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in New Mexico in the last 12 months No new or changed AI rules recorded for New Mexico in the last 12 months. ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Bulletin: Use of Artificial Intelligence in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico - Type: Court practice note or direction · Practice note - Issuer: United States District Court, District of New Mexico (Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales) - Date on page: 9 May 2025 - Effective date: 9 May 2025 - Status: 9 May 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Bulletin_Artificial%20Intelligence_KG%20May%202025.pdf Federal court (not a state court) bulletin from the Chief Judge to counsel and unrepresented parties, reminding them of Rule 11 obligations that legal contentions in signed papers are warranted by existing law. It says filings with AI-generated arguments and citations to non-existent cases have been brought to the Chief Judge's attention and that this practice is prohibited. Sanctions may include fines, educational programs, reporting to bar disciplinary boards and other appropriate sanctions. Key points: - Addressed to counsel and unrepresented parties appearing in the District of New Mexico federal court. - Does not itself require disclosure of AI use. - Judges have inherent supervisory authority over attorneys and unrepresented parties, including discipline. #### Standing Order Establishing Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Generative Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: United States District Court, District of New Mexico (District Judge Margaret I. Strickland) - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf Applies to all cases assigned to this federal district judge. Any party, pro se or represented, who uses a generative AI tool to prepare a filed document must disclose in the document that AI was used and which tool, and the attorney or unrepresented party must certify they checked the accuracy of AI-drafted portions, including citations and legal authority. Failure to disclose and certify may result in sanctions. Key points: - Disclosure of AI use and the specific tool is required in the filing itself. - Certification of checking accuracy, including all citations and legal authority. - The signer remains responsible under Rule 11 and professional conduct and discipline rules. - Judge-specific: other judges of the court may differ; check each judge's page. ### State bar and regulators #### Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004: Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: State Bar of New Mexico, Ethics Advisory Committee - Date on page: 24 September 2024 - Effective date: 24 September 2024 - Status: 24 September 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf The Committee says a New Mexico lawyer may use generative AI, but must do so responsibly and in line with the Rules of Professional Conduct and any tribunal or agency rules, policies, procedures or orders. It discusses confidentiality (16-106), candor and truthfulness (16-303, 16-804(C)), fees and costs (16-105), former-client conflicts (16-109) and supervision (16-501, 16-503), and says lawyers should consider whether Rule 16-104 requires discussing AI use with a client. The opinion is advisory only and does not bind lawyers, the disciplinary board or any tribunal. Key points: - Lawyers must independently verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all research, citations and analysis produced by an AI tool before filing (not relying on the same tool to check itself), and must correct errors. - Lawyers must be familiar with court, agency and local rules on whether AI use is allowed and what level of disclosure is required. - Do not put confidential information into tools lacking adequate confidentiality and security; anonymise client information; obtain informed consent in appropriate cases. - Bill only actual time spent, not time saved by the tool; tool costs may be passed on only if the client is told in writing of the actual cost, and of the lawyer's intent to charge it, before the representation. - Client discussion may be needed if AI plays a significant role in final products, the client asks, or confidential data must be disclosed to obtain the product. - Before using generative AI, lawyers with managerial authority must develop policies and procedures on its ethical use and train the firm's lawyers and staff. ## Sources - United States District Court, District of New Mexico (Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales): [Bulletin: Use of Artificial Intelligence in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico](https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Bulletin_Artificial%20Intelligence_KG%20May%202025.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - United States District Court, District of New Mexico (District Judge Margaret I. Strickland): [Standing Order Establishing Disclosure and Certification Requirements for Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - State Bar of New Mexico, Ethics Advisory Committee: [Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004: Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law](https://sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [NM Supreme Court](https://supremecourt.nmcourts.gov/rules-forms-files/approved-amendments-to-rules-and-forms/2026-approved-amendments-to-rules-and-forms/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [NM Legislature](https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?chamber=H&legtype=B&legno=60&year=25) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 3 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*