New Mexico: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney New Mexico firm: The State Bar’s Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 (September 24, 2024) permits generative AI use on conditions: understand each tool’s data practices, keep confidential information out of tools that share or train on it, “independently verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all research, citations, and analysis,” screen for conflicts, bill only time actually spent, and train staff under firm policies. The opinion is advisory. In federal court, Judge Strickland requires AI disclosure and certification in her cases; the state judiciary has circulated interim AI guidelines; and the Supreme Court of New Mexico has sanctioned AI-related misconduct.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a judge-specific filing check, and a record of each AI tool’s data-sharing, training, and security practices.

State Bar of New Mexico Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004

Citation: State Bar of New Mexico Ethics Advisory Committee, Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004, “Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law” (Sept. 24, 2024). Primary source PDF. Ethics advisory opinions index.

Status: Formal advisory opinion. By its own terms, “The Committee’s opinions are advisory only, and are not binding on lawyers, the disciplinary board, or any tribunal.” As of 2026-09-30, the index lists no later formal opinion on AI. Rules implicated: 16-101, 16-103, 16-104, 16-105, 16-106, 16-109, 16-303, 16-501, 16-503, and 16-804(C) NMRA.

What it says

• Confidentiality (Rule 16-106). “Lawyers must adequately understand the parameters and policies of the Generative AI tools they are using,” including whether a tool shares data with third parties, uses data for training, and has adequate security. Lawyers “must refrain from inputting any confidential information or information that could lead to the discovery of confidential information into Generative AI tools that lack adequate confidentiality and security protections,” “should always anonymize client information,” and “in appropriate cases … should obtain a client’s informed consent before inputting confidential information.”
• Verification and candor (Rules 16-303, 16-804(C)). “A lawyer must independently verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all research, citations, and analysis conducted by the AI tool,” and “must not entirely rely on the Generative AI tool … to verify the accuracy of its research or analysis.” A lawyer “must correct any errors or mistakes made by the tool.” A lawyer “should research and abide by the rules, orders, or other requirements in the relevant jurisdiction pertaining to the use and disclosure of Generative AI tools.”
• Client communication (Rule 16-104). Lawyers “may need to discuss their use of Generative AI with a client if: (a) the use of Generative AI plays a significant role in producing final products for clients; (b) a client inquires about a lawyer’s use of Generative AI; or (c) the use of Generative AI requires the lawyer to disclose confidential client data.”
• Conflicts (Rule 16-109). Where a tool lacks safeguards to protect prior client information and screen conflicts, “the lawyer must verify independently that no conflict exists with prior client information inputted into the AI,” and should not use the tool if that cannot be verified.
• Supervision (Rules 16-501, 16-503). “Prior to using Generative AI, lawyers must develop appropriate policies and procedures on the ethical use of Generative AI and train all other lawyers and staff in the law firm on such policies and procedures.”
• Fees (Rule 16-105). A lawyer “must only use the time the lawyer actually spent on the given task to calculate their fee.” A lawyer who incurs costs for a tool “may seek reimbursement of the cost from the client but must inform the client of the actual cost incurred from using the tool in writing and the lawyer’s intent to charge the client that cost prior to the representation.”
• Competence (Rule 16-101). The opinion ties competence to keeping abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology, and notes potential benefits of generative AI such as more efficient initial drafting and routine correspondence.

Notable gaps

The opinion does not require proactive disclosure of AI use in court filings; it leaves that to each court’s rules and orders.

What federal courts in New Mexico require for AI use in filings

Judge Strickland’s standing order. Standing Order Regarding Use of Generative AI, captioned “IN RE: All Cases Assigned to District Judge Margaret I. Strickland,” applies only to her cases. A party or attorney who uses generative AI in a filing “must disclose in the document that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used,” and must certify having checked the accuracy of any AI-drafted portion, “including all citations and legal authority.” Tracker entry.

District-wide bulletin. Chief Judge Gonzales issued a bulletin on AI use (May 9, 2025) reminding litigants of their Rule 11 obligations. No other D.N.M. judge has posted an AI standing order as of 2026-09-30, so the assigned judge’s procedures are worth checking for each filing.

What New Mexico state courts require for AI use in filings

No court rule on AI in attorney filings has been adopted, and as of 2026-09-30 the Supreme Court’s open-for-comment page states that “There are not any rule proposals open for comment at this time.”

• Interim guidelines. On May 7, 2026, the New Mexico Courts emailed the judiciary Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Courts: Interim Guidelines for Legal Professionals, stating that the guidelines “must be used by legal professionals until formal AI policies are adopted.” The guidelines remind legal professionals of the signing rule (Rule 1-011), candor, competence, client communication (“Disclose your use of AI tools if they impact legal advice or case handling”), and confidentiality, and offer tips such as “Double-check all AI-generated text, citations, or summaries.” They are judicial-branch guidance, not a court rule.
• AI note-taking. A March 16, 2026 memorandum from Chief Justice David K. Thomson to all justices, judges, and judicial branch employees (in the same document) provides that “All third-party AI note-taking applications are prohibited for use during all meetings,” and authorizes court personnel to remove any participant using AI note-taking in a virtual meeting.
• Supreme Court committee. The Supreme Court Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts gave an update to the Legislature’s Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee on August 25, 2026 (agenda).
• Jury instruction. UJI 13-110 NMRA (“Conduct of jurors”) was amended by Order No. S-1-RCR-2024-00081 (approved October 31, 2025) so that the research prohibition “includes the use of artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT,” effective for cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2025 (rule). It governs juror conduct, not attorney conduct.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in New Mexico?

• Supreme Court of New Mexico. In State v. Sandoval (September 9, 2026), the court held an attorney in direct contempt, imposed $5,000 payable to the Client Protection Fund, referred him to the Disciplinary Board, and barred him from appearing before the court pending the disciplinary proceeding.
• Dehghani v. Castro (D.N.M. 2025). In Dehghani v. Castro, No. 2:25-cv-0052 (D.N.M. Apr. 2, 2025), Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez found at least six nonexistent cases in a brief, “likely the handiwork of a ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence (AI) program’s hallucinations.” He imposed a $1,500 fine and required the attorney to self-report to the New Mexico and Texas disciplinary boards and complete a one-hour CLE program related to legal ethics in writing or the use of AI in writing.
• Maturin v. T-Mobile (D.N.M. 2025-2026). In Maturin v. T-Mobile, Senior District Judge Judith C. Herrera ordered the pro se plaintiff to pay the defendant’s reasonable expenses of investigating false citations and to disclose any AI use in future filings, with a Rule 11 certification that all citations were verified.
• Other D.N.M. matters include Lipe v. Albuquerque Public Schools (2025) and Carter v. UZGlobal (2026).

What AI-related legislation has New Mexico considered?

None of the bills below was enacted, and no AI rule proposal is pending. The next regular legislative session is in 2027.

• HB 141 (2026), Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act. Announced by Attorney General Raúl Torrez and Rep. Linda Serrato on January 15, 2026 (announcement), it would have required covered providers to embed disclosures in AI-generated content and offer a free provenance detection tool, with civil penalties of $15,000 per violation and a one-year sentencing enhancement for felonies committed with generative AI. It was not printed and died when the session ended.
• HB 60 (2025), Artificial Intelligence Act. Reported by committee as a substitute on February 25, 2025, and died at the end of the 2025 session.
• HB 28 (2026), Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act. A successor bill by the same lead sponsor, which listed “legal service” among the consequential decisions it would have covered. It was not printed and died.

How do malpractice carriers in New Mexico treat AI use?

The State Bar of New Mexico states that it “does not endorse a professional liability insurance carrier or agency at this time” (State Bar). ALPS is active in New Mexico. No filed AI exclusion on an admitted-market LPL form has been located. Opinion 2024-004 expressly does not opine on substantive law, so it says nothing about coverage; whether a policy responds to an AI-related claim depends on its terms.

What should a New Mexico firm have ready if a carrier asks about AI?

The ALPS law-firm application reviewed for this page (form LF PLA 07-24) asks no question about AI use. Documentation that maps to Opinion 2024-004 is still the firm’s best evidence if AI use is questioned: a written AI use policy, tool data-practice records aligned with the opinion’s confidentiality discussion, training records, and matter-level verification logs. Confirm application items directly with the carrier or the firm’s broker.

What documentation should a New Mexico firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy. Cover approved tools, what client data may and may not be input, output verification, billing, and supervision. Opinion 2024-004 states that lawyers “must develop appropriate policies and procedures on the ethical use of Generative AI” before using it.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Judge-specific filing check. Before each filing, confirm whether the assigned judge has an AI order and, in Judge Strickland’s cases, that the required disclosure and certification are included.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log. Record that each AI-generated citation and quotation was independently confirmed, documenting the verification the opinion requires under Rules 16-303 and 16-804(C).

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Tool data-practice records for each AI tool used in client matters: third-party data sharing, training use of inputs, and security. These document the understanding the opinion requires under Rule 16-106.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records on the firm’s AI policy and Opinion 2024-004, reflecting the opinion’s call to “train all other lawyers and staff.”
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provisions. Address when the firm will discuss AI use with the client (the opinion’s Rule 16-104 triggers), confidentiality safeguards, consent where appropriate, and any AI tool costs to be charged, disclosed in writing before the representation.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Per-matter AI use notes. Record which tool was used, what it produced, and which attorney reviewed and verified the output, including any conflict check where the tool held prior client information.
2. (Owner: billing partner) Billing review documentation confirming that time billed reflects time actually spent and that any AI tool costs charged to the client were disclosed in writing in advance, as the opinion requires under Rule 16-105.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The newsletter covers new resources as they ship.