New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 36-1-19 (2026)

Legal representation; state; county.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A. Except as provided in Subsections B and C of this section, no one shall
represent the state or any county thereof in any matter in which the state or county is
interested except the attorney general, his legally appointed and qualified assistants or
the district attorney or his legally appointed and qualified assistants and such associate
counsel as may appear on order of the court, with the consent of the attorney general or
district attorney.

    B. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a board of county commissioners
may contract with private counsel for legal assistance to or representation of the county
in any civil matter in which the county is interested. Such private counsel shall have the
same powers of compromise, satisfaction or release in civil proceedings as are held by
district attorneys pursuant to Section 36-1-22 NMSA 1978.

    C. The private legal assistance permitted pursuant to Subsection B of this section
shall not extend to the prosecution of any criminal action without the permission of the
district attorney for that county, provided that such permission shall not be required for
the prosecution of any violation of a county ordinance.

History: Laws 1909, ch. 22, § 15; Code 1915, § 1860; C.S. 1929, § 39-109; Laws 1933,
ch. 21, § 7; 1941 Comp., § 17-112; 1953 Comp., § 17-1-12; Laws 1977, ch. 318, § 1;
1985, ch. 147, § 2.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For employment of special legal assistance by the attorney
general, see 8-5-4 NMSA 1978.

Attorney general or district attorney must represent state or county. — The
attorney general's office or the district attorney's office must represent the state, or a
county, in any matter in which the latter is interested. State v. Davidson, 1929-NMSC-
016, 33 N.M. 664, 275 P. 373 (decided prior to 1977 amendment).

Representation of municipality. — This statute does not apply to the representation of
a municipality by a city attorney in a prosecution to enforce a municipal ordinance. City
of Roswell v. Smith, 2006-NMCA-040, 139 N.M. 381, 133 P.3d 271, cert. denied, 2006-
NMCERT-004, 139 N.M. 429, 134 P.3d 120.

But Subsection A only applicable in suits in court. — It is only in suits in court by
the state or a county, and where special counsel seek to represent the state or a
county, that Subsection A has any application. State v. Davidson, 1929-NMSC-016, 33
N.M. 664, 275 P. 373 (decided prior to 1933 amendment).

Improper representation of state denies jurisdiction of court. — Where there was
no explicit approval by order of court authorizing a private counsel to prosecute for the
district attorney, the metropolitan court lacked criminal jurisdiction to proceed in an
assault and battery proceeding on the criminal docket. State v. Baca, 1984-NMCA-096,
101 N.M. 716, 688 P.2d 34.
Purpose of this section and 36-1-4 NMSA 1978 is to prevent an attorney engaged in
the performance of public duties from being influenced or appearing to be influenced by
personal or private interests. The potential for conflict between public and private
interests exists whether the legal services rendered consist of court appearances or
other legal services. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-07.

Officer may not prosecute case in district court after appeal. — A peace officer who
has prosecuted a criminal case in magistrate or municipal court may not continue to
prosecute the case in district court after an appeal of the magistrate or municipal court
judgment has been filed in district court. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-27.

Responsibility for attorney's fees. — In a lawsuit between a county commission and
other elected county officials concerning employment terms and conditions, each party
is responsible for its own attorney's fees. The county is responsible for legal fees of its
elected officials and employees only to the extent required by statute. 1990 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 90-05.

Law reviews. — For annual survey of New Mexico criminal law, see 16 N.M.L. Rev. 9
(1986).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: City of Roswell v. Smith, 133 P.3d 271 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006).
City of Roswell v. Smith, 133 P.3d 271 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “1-3 (1989) (advising that police officers may not prosecute criminal cases in district court without violating Section 36-1-19). If the legislature had wished to regulate representation of municipalities, it would have done so.”
New Mexico State Inv. Council v. Weinstein, 2016 NMCA 069 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “NMSIC states in its brief that the power to settle litigation is vested in the Attorney General and that the Attorney General delegated such power to NMSIC or to NMSIC’s counsel, but conceded at oral argument that the record does not reflect such delegation.”
State v. Baca, 688 P.2d 34 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 8× “Second, he argues that there is no evidence in the record that the private counsel for Salaz was appointed to act as associate counsel for the district attorney pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 36-1-19 (Repl. Pamp.1984). Metro court’s assumption of criminal jurisdiction over the…”
State v. Hollenbeck, 814 P.2d 143 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Nor was he appointed to act as associate counsel by specific order of the court under NMSA 1978, Section 36-1-19 (Repl. Pamp. 1984), another way a private attorney may represent the state in criminal prosecutions.”
State v. Cherryhomes, 1996 NMSC 072 (N.M. 1996). · cites it 4× “The court noted that under NMSA1978, Section 36-1-19(A) (Repl. Pamp.1991), no one “other than the attorney general’s office [or] district attorney’s office [may represent] the state in a criminal proceeding, except on order of the court and with the consent of those officers.”
State v. Surratt, 2016 NMSC 004 (N.M. 2015). “, NMSA 1978, § 8-5-3 (1933) (authorizing the attorney general to act “upon the failure or refusal of any district attorney to act”as otherwise authorized “in any criminal or civil case” in the interest of a “county, state, or any department thereof’); § 36-1-19(A) (giving the…”
State v. Gardner (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “1, Section 36-1-19(A) should apply to this case, and to every situation in which a private attorney is appointed to prosecute on behalf of the State.”
State v. Cohen (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “1-3 (1989) (advising that police 5 officers may not continue to prosecute criminal cases in district court after an appeal 6 of the magistrate court judgment has been filed in district court without violating 7 NMSA 1978, Section 36-1-19 (1985). The opinion concludes that, while…”
N.M. State Inv. Council v. Weinstein (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “See § 36-1-19 and 31 NMSA 1978, § 36-1-22 (1875-1876) (stating that the Attorney General represents the 32 state and that the Attorney General has the authority to settle matters involving the 43 1 NMSIC, which is unquestionably subject to the OMA, attempted to delegate its 2…”
City of Aztec v. Morrow (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Rejecting that argument, Smith concluded that “the [d]efendant has cited no authority for the proposition that the state or a county [is an interested party to] the enforcement of the Roswell City Code,” id.”
State of New Mexico v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (D.N.M. 2021). “§ 36-1-19 ("no one shall represent the state .”
State of New Mexico v. Dwyer (10th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “Dwyer and Matthews have also moved under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 36-1-19 (A) (Michie 1991) to disqualify Manning from retaining private counsel on New Mexico’s behalf.”
— N.M. Stat. § 36-1-19(A) — 6 cases
City of Roswell v. Smith, 133 P.3d 271 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “1-3 (1989) (advising that police officers may not prosecute criminal cases in district court without violating Section 36-1-19). If the legislature had wished to regulate representation of municipalities, it would have done so.”
State v. Cherryhomes, 1996 NMSC 072 (N.M. 1996). “The court noted that under NMSA1978, Section 36-1-19(A) (Repl. Pamp.1991), no one “other than the attorney general’s office [or] district attorney’s office [may represent] the state in a criminal proceeding, except on order of the court and with the consent of those officers.”
State v. Surratt, 2016 NMSC 004 (N.M. 2015). “, NMSA 1978, § 8-5-3 (1933) (authorizing the attorney general to act “upon the failure or refusal of any district attorney to act”as otherwise authorized “in any criminal or civil case” in the interest of a “county, state, or any department thereof’); § 36-1-19(A) (giving the…”
State v. Gardner (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “1, Section 36-1-19(A) should apply to this case, and to every situation in which a private attorney is appointed to prosecute on behalf of the State.”
City of Aztec v. Morrow (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). “Rejecting that argument, Smith concluded that “the [d]efendant has cited no authority for the proposition that the state or a county [is an interested party to] the enforcement of the Roswell City Code,” id.”
— N.M. Stat. § 36-1-19(B) — 2 cases
New Mexico State Inv. Council v. Weinstein, 2016 NMCA 069 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). “NMSIC states in its brief that the power to settle litigation is vested in the Attorney General and that the Attorney General delegated such power to NMSIC or to NMSIC’s counsel, but conceded at oral argument that the record does not reflect such delegation.”
N.M. State Inv. Council v. Weinstein (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). “See § 36-1-19 and 31 NMSA 1978, § 36-1-22 (1875-1876) (stating that the Attorney General represents the 32 state and that the Attorney General has the authority to settle matters involving the 43 1 NMSIC, which is unquestionably subject to the OMA, attempted to delegate its 2…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.