N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-128.6

As amended through August 23, 2024

Rule 1-128.6 - Disqualification of collaborative lawyer and lawyers in associated law firm

A.Disqualification of collaborative lawyer. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph C of this rule, a collaborative lawyer is disqualified from appearing before a tribunal to represent a party in a proceeding related to the collaborative matter.

B.Disqualification of law firm. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph C of this rule, a lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated is disqualified from appearing before a tribunal to represent a party in a proceeding related to the collaborative matter if the collaborative lawyer is disqualified from doing so under Paragraph A of this rule.

C.Exception; Adoption of agreement. A collaborative lawyer or a lawyer in a law firm with which the collaborative lawyer is associated may represent a party before a tribunal to seek an order adopting an agreement resulting from the collaborative law process.

N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-128.6

Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-020, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after12/31/2016.

Committee commentary. - Disqualification of the collaborative lawyer from participation in subsequent adjudicative proceedings in the same matter, according to the Uniform Law Commission, "is a fundamental defining characteristic of collaborative law." Unif. Collab. Law R. 9 cmt. (Unif. Law Comm'n 2010). Requiring disqualification gives the parties and their collaborative lawyers a unique incentive to reach an acceptable settlement within the collaborative process. See Pauline H. Tesler, Collaborative Law: Achieving Effective Resolution in Divorce without Litigation, 12 (2d ed. 2009) ("Unlike any other kind of family law representation, the risk of failure is distributed to the lawyers as well as to the clients in collaborative law."). The disqualification requirement also results in a much greater level of comfort, candor, and trust for many collaborative participants because there is no risk, for example, of being cross-examined in court by the other party's collaborative lawyer. See David Hoffman, Foreword to the Second Edition of Tesler, supra, at xvii ("Because the parties do not have to fear that they will one day face the other party's lawyer in adversarial proceedings in court, they are able to achieve deeper levels of communication and resolution.").

[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-020, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2016.]