D.N.M.: D.N.M. Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence (Chief Judge Gonzales)
Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales · U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- D.N.M. Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence (Chief Judge Gonzales)
- Order date
- May 9, 2025
Status and scope
No AI-specific filing obligation: in force, but it imposes no disclosure, verification, or use restriction on attorney filings beyond existing rules. It provides: I find it necessary to remind all litigants that appear in this Court of their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure that the legal contentions in papers they sign and file with the Court are warranted by existing law.
What the instrument provides
- I find it necessary to remind all litigants that appear in this Court of their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure that the legal contentions in papers they sign and file with the Court are warranted by existing law.
- Examples of filings have been brought to my attention that appear to include AI-generated arguments and citations that are not warranted by existing law. In these cases, attorneys have filed documents that appear to use AI and citations to non-existent cases. This practice is prohibited.
- The Judges also have inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of attorneys and unrepresented parties appearing in their courtrooms, including the authority to discipline.
- Sanctions may include fines, non-monetary directives such as completing educational programs, reporting to the disciplinary boards of the bars of which the attorney is a member, and other appropriate and necessary sanctions.
Practice areas: federal civil, federal criminal
What the bulletin says
This is a court-wide bulletin issued by Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, addressed “to Counsel and Unrepresented Parties Appearing in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico” and copied to all D.N.M. judges and the Clerk of Court.
- It is a Rule 11 reminder, not a standing order. The bulletin does not impose any new disclosure or certification mechanics. It expressly relies on Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require litigants to ensure that legal contentions are warranted by existing law.
- Hallucinated citations are prohibited. The bulletin notes that “examples of filings have been brought to my attention that appear to include AI-generated arguments and citations that are not warranted by existing law” and that “this practice is prohibited.”
- Sanctions menu. The bulletin reminds practitioners that judges have inherent supervisory authority and can impose fines, non-monetary directives such as completing educational programs, reports to the disciplinary boards of the bars of which the attorney is a member, and other sanctions.
How this differs from Judge Strickland’s standing order
The District of New Mexico has no district-wide standing order on generative AI. Judge Margaret I. Strickland has issued an individual chambers standing order requiring disclosure-and-certification (tracked separately at nmd-strickland-ai-order). Chief Judge Gonzales’s bulletin reaches the entire district but is regulatory in tone, not procedural: it tells practitioners that hallucinated citations are sanctionable under existing Rule 11, without adding new pre-filing checkboxes.
Practitioner workflow
For any D.N.M. matter, treat AI-assisted filings as if the Strickland standing order applies even when assigned to a different judge: verify every citation against the primary source, and assume the chief judge will support sanctions for hallucinated authority. The bulletin signals district-wide enforcement intent.
Scope
Entire District of New Mexico. The bulletin governs every litigant in the district but, unlike Judge Strickland’s order, requires no specific disclosure or certification language.
Primary source
Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence (Chief Judge Gonzales, May 9, 2025, PDF): https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Bulletin_Artificial%20Intelligence_KG%20May%202025.pdf
Sanctions cases decided under this order
Cases in our tracker where this rule appears to have produced or directly informed the sanctions decision.
- Carter v. UZGlobal LLC , May 2026 ($1,000 fine to the Clerk of Court; self-report to the Texas disciplinary authority and copy of the order to the New Mexico bar; proof of attendance at an AI CLE; Amazon Defendants permitted to move for fees and costs; costs may not be charged to the clients)