Short answer. New Mexico lets lawyers who are not in the same firm divide a fee only if the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and the total fee is reasonable (Rule 16-105(F) NMRA). The rule states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share. A State Bar of New Mexico ethics opinion advised that a lawyer may not split a fee with counsel who, other than signing up the client, does no work in and assumes no responsibility for the matter; it read that as an impermissible referral fee under Rule 16-702(B) as that rule read before December 31, 2021 (Formal Opinion 2021-001).
Sources read October 8, 2026; checked against LegalFlare’s research October 27, 2026. Rules text is as printed in the unannotated New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct (NMRA Rule Set 16) on NMOneSource, fetched October 8, 2026; the statute is as printed in NMSA 1978 chapter 36 on NMOneSource, fetched the same day. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.
New Mexico’s referral fee rules at a glance
| Question | New Mexico’s answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Governing rule | Rule 16-105(F) NMRA, New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct | NMRA Rule Set 16, Rule 16-105(F) |
| Written client consent | Required in every division: the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing | Rule 16-105(F)(2) |
| Notice to the client | The client must agree to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive | Rule 16-105(F)(2) |
| Proportion to services or joint responsibility | Required: in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer, or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation | Rule 16-105(F)(1) |
| Reasonable total fee | Required | Rule 16-105(F)(3) |
| Cap on the secondary lawyer’s share | None stated in Rule 16-105(F) | Rule 16-105(F) |
| Statutes | NMSA 1978, § 36-2-31 makes it unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association to divide with or receive from any attorney-at-law or group of attorneys-at-law, whether practicing in New Mexico or elsewhere, before or after action is brought, any portion of any fee or compensation charged or received by the attorney, or any valuable consideration or reward, as an inducement for placing, or in consideration of being placed, a claim or demand of any kind in the hands of the attorney or of another person, firm, corporation or association, for the purpose of collecting it, instituting an action on it, representing the claimant in pursuing any civil remedy for its recovery, or its settlement or compromise, whether in New Mexico or elsewhere; the section shall not apply to agreements between attorneys to divide compensation received in cases or matters legitimately, lawfully and properly received by them | NMSA 1978, § 36-2-31 |
What Rule 16-105(F) says
Rule 16-105(F) NMRA governs the division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Its words, as printed in the rules fetched October 8, 2026 (NMRA Rule Set 16, Rule 16-105(F)):
F. Fee splitting. A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;
(2) the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and
(3) the total fee is reasonable.
The date these words of Rule 16-105(F) took effect is not established in our sources. They are stated here as printed when fetched in October 2026.
What the client must agree to in writing
Every division needs the client’s agreement to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement must be confirmed in writing (Rule 16-105(F)(2)). The division may be made only if that condition, the proportion-or-joint-responsibility condition (Rule 16-105(F)(1)) and a reasonable total fee (Rule 16-105(F)(3)) are all met.
State Bar of New Mexico Formal Opinion 2021-001 (2021) advised that this requires the arrangement to be set forth in writing for the client’s review and that, at the very least, the writing must confirm the client’s agreement.
What must be disclosed to the client
The client must agree to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive (Rule 16-105(F)(2)).
Formal Opinion 2021-001 (2021) advised that either or both lawyers should encourage the client to ask any questions about the arrangement and give candid answers, citing Rule 16-104(B)’s duty to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary for the client’s informed decisions. It also advised that in a joint representation each lawyer must make the professional liability insurance disclosure of Rule 16-104(C), and obtain the client’s acknowledgement, if that lawyer does not hold the required coverage.
Proportionality or joint responsibility
A division is allowed only if it is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer, or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation (Rule 16-105(F)(1)), and the total fee is reasonable (Rule 16-105(F)(3)).
Formal Opinion 2021-001 (2021) advised that:
- a proportional division might rest on each lawyer’s time, or on time and the value each provides;
- joint responsibility “entails financial and ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were associated in a partnership,” in the words of the rule’s Commentary (the opinion cites it as “Rule 16-106 NMRA (2021), cmt. [8]”; the words are Comment [8] to Rule 16-105, on the fee-splitting paragraph, Rule 16-105(F));
- a lawyer who only signs up the client, and neither provides any service nor assumes joint responsibility, may not share the fee, because that would be an impermissible referral fee under Rule 16-702(B). The opinion applied Rule 16-702(B) as it read before December 31, 2021.
Referring a case out of New Mexico, or into it
New Mexico has no choice-of-law rule in its Rules of Professional Conduct. Its Rule 16-805, headed “Disciplinary authority,” has no choice-of-law paragraph, and our research records ABA Model Rule 8.5(b) as omitted in New Mexico. Rule 16-805 reads (NMRA Rule Set 16, Rule 16-805):
A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs. A lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction is also subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in this jurisdiction. A lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another jurisdiction for the same conduct.
The date these words took effect is not established in our sources.
Referring a case out of New Mexico. A lawyer admitted in New Mexico is subject to its disciplinary authority regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs (Rule 16-805).
Receiving a case into New Mexico. A lawyer not admitted in New Mexico is subject to its disciplinary authority if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in New Mexico (Rule 16-805).
No New Mexico court decision, ethics opinion or statute applying Rule 16-805, or deciding choice of law for fee division or referral payments, was found. No authority we hold decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral.
Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers
- Payment for referrals. Rule 16-702(B) reads (NMRA Rule Set 16, Rule 16-702(B)):
B. Payments for referrals. A lawyer shall not compensate, give, or promise anything of value to a person who is not an employee or lawyer in the same firm for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may
(1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this rule;
(2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service. A qualified lawyer referral service is a lawyer referral service that has been approved by an appropriate regulatory authority;
(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 16-117 NMRA;
(4) refer clients to another lawyer or a non-lawyer professional under an agreement not otherwise prohibited under these rules that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, if
(i) the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive, and
(ii) the client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement; and
(5) give nominal gifts as an expression of appreciation that are neither intended nor reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for recommending a lawyer’s services.
The lead-in and paragraphs (B)(3), (B)(4), (B)(4)(ii) and (B)(5) are in force since December 31, 2021. Before then the lead-in read “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services”. The dates paragraphs (B)(1), (B)(2) and (B)(4)(i) took effect are not established in our sources. - Nonlawyers. A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer (Rule 16-504(A)), except that: an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate or to one or more specified persons (A)(1); a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled or disappeared lawyer may, under Rule 16-117 NMRA, pay to the estate or other representative of that lawyer the agreed-upon purchase price (A)(2); a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased, disabled or disappeared lawyer may pay to the estate or other representative that proportion of the total compensation that fairly represents the services rendered by that lawyer (A)(3); a lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement (A)(4); and a lawyer may share court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter (A)(5). The date these words took effect is not established in our sources. In In the Matter of Montclare (2016), the lawyer admitted violating Rule 16-504(A) by sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer. - Statute. NMSA 1978, § 36-2-31, headed “Fee splitting prohibited; division of fees by attorneys excepted,” reads (NMSA 1978, § 36-2-31):
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association to divide with or receive from any attorney-at-law, or group of attorneys-at-law, whether practicing in this state or elsewhere, either before or after action is brought, any portion of any fee or compensation charged or received by such attorney-at-law, or any valuable consideration or reward, as an inducement for placing or in consideration of being placed in the hands of such attorney or attorneys-at-law, or in the hands of another person, firm, corporation or association, a claim or demand of any kind, for the purpose of collecting such claim or instituting an action thereon or of representing claimant in the pursuit of any civil remedy for the recovery thereof, or for the settlement or compromise thereof, whether such compromise, settlement, recovery, suit, claim, collection or demand shall be in this state or elsewhere. This paragraph [section] shall not apply to agreements between attorneys to divide compensation received in cases or matters legitimately, lawfully and properly received by them.
No authority we hold reads the statute’s exception for agreements between attorneys together with Rule 16-105(F). This page does not say whether a division under Rule 16-105(F) is lawful under § 36-2-31, does not date the section, and does not state the consequences of violating it.
New Mexico cases
We state what each decision held, in the words of our research. Later treatment of these decisions has not been searched, so do not read this list as a statement that each one remains good law. The decision below concerns sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer. We found no New Mexico court decision applying Rule 16-105(F) or Rule 16-702(B); see What our research did not find, below.
| Case | Citation | Year | What it held |
|---|---|---|---|
| In the Matter of Jason S. Montclare, Esquire | 2016-NMSC-023 | 2016 | New Mexico Supreme Court disciplined a lawyer who took a flat fee in real property and deeded a half interest to his office manager as pay before he had earned it. The lawyer had admitted, in a conditional agreement approved by a Disciplinary Board panel, to violating Rule 16-504(A) by sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, and consented to a formal reprimand; the Court denied his petition for a hearing on it. The Court did not itself decide the Rule 16-504(A) violation: its own holdings rest on Rules 16-105(A), 16-108(A) and 16-115, and it issued a public censure. |
State Bar of New Mexico ethics opinions
These opinions are advisory. As with the cases, later treatment of these opinions has not been searched. Opinions 1987-7, 1987-8, 1988-3, 1992-1 and 1993-1 applied the payment-for-recommendation rule when it was lettered 16-702(C), and Opinion 2021-001 applied Rule 16-702(B) as it read before December 31, 2021. Each is stated as the opinion read the rule then; none is presented here as construing today’s Rule 16-702(B). Opinions before 2013 print no date and are given by year only.
| Opinion | Year | What it said |
|---|---|---|
| Advisory Opinion 1987-7 | 1987 | A New Mexico lawyer may not use a private, for-profit referral service that charges the lawyer an “advertising fee” for each referral who retains the lawyer. Under Rule 16-702 of the rules effective January 1, 1987, whose paragraph (C) barred giving anything of value for recommending the lawyer’s services except the reasonable cost of advertising or of preparing a permitted communication and the usual charges for a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other legal service organization, using it would be a violation, because the service provided no advertising or communication for any specific attorney and did not appear to be not-for-profit. It also found a violation of the former Code. It applied the earlier wording (then 16-702(C)). |
| Advisory Opinion 1987-8 | 1987 | It is not a violation of the rules effective January 1, 1987 for a lawyer to give clients or the public information about prepaid legal services. Quoting the then Rule 16-702(C) (a lawyer “shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services”, except the reasonable costs of advertising or of preparing a permitted communication and the usual charges for a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other legal service organization), it cautioned the lawyers to comply with the advertising and solicitation provisions of Rules 16-701 and 16-702 and to avoid personal solicitation, and said enclosing a brochure in a billing to a current client is not an ethical violation. It applied the earlier wording (then 16-702(C)). |
| Advisory Opinion 1988-3 | 1988 | On a lawyer franchisee’s royalties and advertising payments to a franchisor, based on gross revenues and not on individual cases: because Rule 16-702(C), as then lettered, lets a lawyer pay the reasonable cost of advertising or of preparing a permitted communication, a royalty that reflects that cost does not necessarily violate the rules; and the fee-splitting rules of Rule 16-504 would appear to be implicated even less than by the payments of a percentage of fees to approved lawyer referral services that most jurisdictions allow, since the royalties are not based on fees collected in particular cases. It assumed no referrals were part of the arrangement, since referrals by a for-profit organization may violate the rules. It applied the earlier wording (then 16-702(C)). |
| Advisory Opinion 1992-1 | 1992 | A lawyer may not provide free legal advice to real estate brokers who direct title companies to have the lawyer prepare their closing documents, because SCRA 1986, 16-702(C) prohibits giving anything of value to a person in exchange for recommending the lawyer’s services; the arrangement also raised conflict-of-interest and independent-judgment concerns (16-107, 16-504(C)). It applied the earlier wording (then 16-702(C)). |
| Advisory Opinion 1993-1 | 1993 | Under Rule 16-702(C) as revised effective August 1, 1992 (“shall not give anything of value or otherwise provide a benefit to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services”): it would be unethical for a lawyer to participate in a lawyer referral service unless the service were not-for-profit or, if for-profit, the lawyer paid it no fee, and in either case the lawyer’s professional independence and client confidentiality were preserved and the advertising complied with the rules. Noting that Rule 16-504 prohibits, among other things, sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, it advised that a lawyer may not join a network of nonlawyer professionals who refer business to one another, even where each bills separately and no fees are shared, because the mutual referrals would impinge on the lawyer’s independence (16-504(C)) and involve receipt of value in exchange for recommending the lawyer’s services (16-702(C)). It applied the earlier wording (then 16-702(C)). That wording, as the opinion quotes it, had no reciprocal-referral exception; today’s Rule 16-702(B)(4) permits a non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreement the client is informed of, so the opinion’s conclusion on mutual referrals is not stated here as current New Mexico law. |
| Formal Opinion 2021-001, “Fee Splitting when one lawyer provides no services” | 2021 | A lawyer may not split a fee with counsel who, other than signing up the client, does no work in and assumes no responsibility for the matter; that would be an impermissible referral fee under Rule 16-702(B), whose exceptions it read as four (advertising costs; the charges of a legal service plan or not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service; purchase of a law practice; and a non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreement the client is informed of). A fee may be split between lawyers not in the same firm only if each condition of Rule 16-105(F) is met: the division is in proportion to the services each lawyer performs or each lawyer assumes joint (ethical and financial) responsibility as if in a partnership; the client agrees to the arrangement, including each lawyer’s share, confirmed in writing; and the total fee is reasonable. It applied Rule 16-702(B) as it read before December 31, 2021; its quotation of Rule 16-105(F) matches the words on this page. |
What our research did not find
- No New Mexico court decision applying Rule 16-105(F) or Rule 16-702(B) was found (CourtListener, searched October 8, 2026). Montclare holds Rule 16-105(A), not 16-105(F); Quintana (1986) applied the former Code and is not cited here. This page does not say no such decision exists.
- No New Mexico court decision, ethics opinion or statute applying Rule 16-805, or deciding choice of law for fee division or referral payments, was found (searched October 8, 2026). This page does not say which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral involving New Mexico.
- The orders that set the words of Rule 16-105(F), Rule 16-504(A), Rule 16-805 and paragraphs (B)(1), (B)(2) and (B)(4)(i) of Rule 16-702 are not held, so this page gives no effective date for them. Only the order effective December 31, 2021 is held; it dates the Rule 16-702(B) lead-in and paragraphs (B)(3), (B)(4), (B)(4)(ii) and (B)(5).
- NMSA 1978, § 36-2-31 is carried from the Compilation Commission’s print of chapter 36 with no effective date. No authority we hold reads its exception for agreements between attorneys to divide compensation in matters “legitimately, lawfully and properly received by them” together with Rule 16-105(F). This page does not date § 36-2-31, does not say whether a Rule 16-105(F) division is lawful under it, and does not state the consequences of violating it.
- NMSA 1978, §§ 36-2-29, 36-2-30, 36-2-32 to 36-2-37 and § 30-27-3(C)-(D) (barratry) are held in our research but not described here. Sections 36-2-35 and 36-2-36 belong to the same act as § 36-2-31, so this page does not state the consequences of violating § 36-2-31.
- Only NMSA chapters 36 and 30 were searched. No lawyer-referral-service statute or NMRA chapter 24 rule was found, but that does not show none exists. This page does not say New Mexico has no other statute on fee sharing, referral payments or referral services.
- Rule 16-703 (solicitation) and the authorities on it are held in our research but not covered here. This page does not state New Mexico’s solicitation rule.
- The commentary to Rules 16-105, 16-504 and 16-702 is not quoted here, except Comment [8] to Rule 16-105 as Opinion 2021-001 quotes it. Some commentary cites “Rule 16-105(E) NMRA (fee splitting)”; the fee-splitting paragraph is Rule 16-105(F). Opinion 2021-001 cites the joint-responsibility commentary as “Rule 16-106 NMRA (2021), cmt. [8]”; the words are Comment [8] to Rule 16-105.
- Opinions 1987-7, 1987-8, 1988-3, 1992-1 and 1993-1 applied the payment-for-recommendation rule when it was lettered 16-702(C); those words (1987 to about 2008) are not held, and the Rule 16-702(B) words before December 31, 2021 carry no start date. Opinion 2021-001 applied Rule 16-702(B) as it read before December 31, 2021. Whether the 1987–1993 analysis survives the 2008 and 2021 amendments is not settled in our research. None of these opinions is presented here as construing today’s Rule 16-702(B).
- Opinion 1993-1’s conclusion that mutual referrals with nonlawyer professionals violate 16-702(C) was reached under words that, as it quotes them, had no reciprocal-referral exception. Today’s Rule 16-702(B)(4) permits a non-exclusive reciprocal referral agreement the client is informed of. This page does not present that conclusion as current New Mexico law.
- In Montclare, the Rule 16-504(A) violation was admitted by consent and not decided by the Court, which held Rules 16-105(A), 16-108(A) and 16-115. Because the words of Rule 16-504(A) are undated, whether the Rule 16-504 words that Montclare (conduct in 2013) and Opinions 1988-3 and 1993-1 (SCRA 1986) applied are today’s words is not established.
- State Bar of New Mexico opinions before 2013 print no date; Opinions 1987-7, 1987-8, 1988-3, 1992-1 and 1993-1 are dated here only to the year their number states. Opinion 1987-8 cites its companion as “1987-” with the number blank; its tie to Opinion 1987-7 is inferred from the facts it recites.
- Not read: Opinion 1986-8 (a former-Code opinion cited by Opinion 1993-1). Not captured: a second CourtListener record of Montclare and of Revo, and the NMOneSource record of In re Quintana. Opinions and decisions applying only the former Code (Opinions 1983-1, 1984-3, 1984-6, 1984-9, 1984-11, 1984-12, 1984-13 and 1985-9; Quintana, 1986) are not cited here. This page does not say the authorities it cites are the only New Mexico authority on the topic.
- Later treatment of every New Mexico authority on this page has not been searched. This page states what each authority held, not that it remains good law.
Frequently asked questions
Can I share a referral fee with a lawyer in New Mexico?
Only if Rule 16-105(F) NMRA is met. A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and the total fee is reasonable. State Bar of New Mexico Formal Opinion 2021-001 advised that a lawyer may not split a fee with counsel who, other than signing up the client, does no work in and assumes no responsibility for the matter; it read that as an impermissible referral fee under Rule 16-702(B) as that rule read before December 31, 2021.
Is there a cap on referral fees in New Mexico?
Rule 16-105(F) states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share. It requires that the division be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or that each lawyer assume joint responsibility for the representation, and that the total fee be reasonable.
Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in New Mexico?
Yes, in every division. Rule 16-105(F)(2) requires that the client agree to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and that the agreement be confirmed in writing. Formal Opinion 2021-001 (2021) advised that this requires the arrangement to be set forth in writing for the client’s review and that, at the very least, the writing must confirm the client’s agreement.
Can a New Mexico lawyer divide a fee with a lawyer from another state?
New Mexico’s Rules of Professional Conduct have no choice-of-law rule. Rule 16-805 makes a lawyer admitted in New Mexico subject to its disciplinary authority regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs, and a lawyer not admitted in New Mexico subject to it if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in New Mexico; a lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both New Mexico and another jurisdiction for the same conduct. No authority we hold decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral.
Sources
- New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct, NMRA Rule Set 16 (Rules 16-105, 16-504, 16-702, 16-805), unannotated, fetched October 8, 2026: NMOneSource
- NMSA 1978, chapter 36 (§ 36-2-31), unannotated, fetched October 8, 2026: NMOneSource
- Case and ethics opinions: linked in the tables above.
More states: Referral fee rules by state.
Disclaimer
This page summarizes a state’s rules on dividing fees between lawyers, from the primary sources it cites, as of the dates shown. It is general information for lawyers, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Rose Law Firm, PLLC dba LegalFlare. Rules and the way courts and bar authorities read them change. Read the cited sources, and check with the state bar or your own counsel, before relying on anything here.