Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Herndon
LAST UPDATED 1/28
/2025
ORIGINAL DATE 1/27/2025
SHORT TITLE
Attorneys for Indigent Domestic Abuse
Victims
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 57
ANALYST Chavez
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
AOC
Indeterminate
but minimal
At least $4
million
At least $4
million
At least $8
million
Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Relates to House Bill 123 and Senate Bill 26.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG)
Public Defender Department (PDD)
Crime Victims Reparation Commission (CVRC)
SUMMARY
House Bill 57 (HB57) would amend the Family Violence Protection Act (FPVA) to provide any
indigent, alleged domestic abuse victim with a right to an attorney to assist them in all legal
proceedings related to alleged domestic abuse or the alleged domestic abuser. HB57 charges
judges with informing alleged domestic abuse victims of their right to obtain legal counsel and
determining a victim’s indigency status at the victim’s first appearance in court. HB57 defines
“indigent person” as an individual who “taking into account present income, liquid assets and
requirements for basic necessities of life for the individual and the individual's dependents, is
unable, without undue hardship, to pay for all or part of the expenses of legal representation.”
Attorney services and court costs would be provided at public expense.
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
AOC provides the following:
House Bill 57 does not contain an appropriation to cover the additional costs for the House Bill 57 – Page 2
judiciary to appoint counsel for alleged domestic abuse victims in all legal proceedings
under Chapter 40 NMSA 1978. There will be a significant administrative cost for the
statewide update and implementation of these statutory changes, including the
development of new rules and court operation procedures.
The fiscal impact is most significant in 1) the cost of court appointed attorneys; and 2)
court costs associated with an increase in hearings and case processing time as a result of
the additional separate hearings contemplated by the bill to advise victims of their right to
counsel. The bill expands access to court appointed attorneys for all case types in Chapter
40, the statutory section covering all family law matters. If court appointed attorneys are
available, which is not a given considering New Mexico’s chronic attorney shortage, the
cost would likely exceed $4M as there will likely be a significant increase in the number
of parties alleging they are victims of domestic abuse and family law cases tend to reopen
and remain open for many years. AOC would also require funding for two FTEs to
administer this program.
The Administrative Office of the District Attorney (AODA) notes the following:
The judiciary would have to set up a system like the public defender’s office to determine
indigent status of victims. The Judiciary would also have to set up a system like the
public defender’s office to distribute case to attorneys throughout the State of New
Mexico. Then there is the cost of attorneys to be paid and number of victims that would
take advantage of the program. This would be a reoccurring expense to the judiciary.
The Crime Victims Reparation Commission provides the following:
CVRC currently provides funds for this type of representation (assistance with orders of
protection, emergency custody and visitation procedures, and other civil legal assistance
upon approval) with a $2000 cap on payment for these services. Attorneys have declined
to accept these cases due to the amount of the cap.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
AOC provides the following:
These proposed statutory changes in HB57 will have a significant impact on the
judiciary.
1. Additional Procedure: HB57 states that when an alleged domestic abuse victim first
appears in court the judge shall advise the alleged victim of the right to be represented
by counsel of the victim’s choosing or to have an adjournment to confer with counsel,
and to have counsel assigned by the court in any case in which the victim is
financially unable to obtain counsel. Domestic violence proceedings are prone to
parties not appearing, and adding hearings increases the potential for no-show parties.
2. Court-appointed attorney case-type expansion: HB57 expands AOC’s court-
appointed attorney program to include representation for alleged domestic abuse
victims for all cases under Chapter 40 NMSA 1978, potentially requiring the
appointment of counsel in the following case types:
1. Dissolution of marriage (divorce)
2. Child support
3. Adoption
4. Name change
5. Kinship guardianship House Bill 57 – Page 3
6. Parentage
7. Domestic violence orders of protection
8. Extreme risk firearm protection orders
3. AOC capacity: Section 4 specifically identifies AOC as the entity to develop and
oversee contracts with court appointed attorneys. AOC will require additional FTEs
and a substantial new budget to implement and administer this new AOC Court
Appointed Attorney program.
4. Court-appointed attorney availability: Court appointed attorney work in the area of
child welfare and mental health is not only difficult because of the issues involved,
but because it is not lucrative. Court appointed attorneys may typically be reimbursed
between $300 and $1500 per case. AOC currently confronts the annual challenge of
identifying attorneys interested in serving in this capacity. The scope of HB57 would
substantially expand this effort. Even with funding, AOC is unable to confirm that
enough court appointed attorneys are available to fulfill appointment in the case types
required under HB57.
5. Case process barriers remain: For domestic violence orders of protection cases, courts
must set hearings within 10 days of the issuance of a temporary order of protection.
As written, HB57 requires a judge to advise an alleged domestic abuse victim at their
first appearance in court of their right to have legal counsel appointed. In domestic
violence order of protection cases, the petitioner does not see a judge when asking
that a temporary domestic violence order of protection be granted. The first
opportunity for an alleged domestic abuse victim to see a judge is at the 10-day
hearing. In calendar year 2024, there were 10,780 petitions for a domestic violence
order of protection filed statewide. Most petitions for a domestic violence order of
protection are filed by the alleged domestic abuse victim, not by an attorney. Under
the proposed statute, an attorney would not be included in the process until the first
hearing which could be 10 days after the filing of the filing of the victim’s petition. If
a counter-petition is filed, the second hearing would also include notice to the
counter-petitioners that they have a right to counsel and a third hearing would be set
to address the claims in both petitions.
6. Additional hearings for Domestic Violence Orders of Protection: In calendar year
2024, there were 14,888 hearings in domestic violence order of protection cases. If
the alleged domestic abuse victims ask the court to appoint legal counsel in 40
percent of the cases, this will result in an additional 4,312 hearing to be reset. There is
likely to be an increase in domestic violence petitions filed, as well as counter-
petitions, if parties alleging domestic violence are able to be assigned legal counsel
after alleging domestic abuse. It is unlikely that most judicial districts will be able to
absorb this type of increase in hearings. This may result in a delay in having the first
10-day hearing set in domestic violence order of protection cases and the need for
additional judges and/or hearing officers to handle the caseload increase. In addition,
the time to disposition for domestic violence order of protection cases will increase
statewide.
AODA identifies several issues with the bill, including:
1. Courts appointing an attorney to a victim would make it appear the court system is taking House Bill 57 – Page 4
sides.
2. The district attorney’s office has victim advocates whose job is to advocate for the victim
to district attorney prosecuting the case and to guide the victim through the process of the
criminal court system.
3. HB57 would take time from judges who have heavy caseloads to address a victims’
indigence status.
NMAG provides the following:
It is not clear why there is a reference to “habeas corpus proceedings initiated in the
supreme court” in Section 4, as set forth above, related to the obtaining of contracts with
private attorneys for services to be performed to indigent domestic abuse victims.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
The courts participate in performance-based budgeting and the bill may have an impact on the
following performance measures: cases disposed of as a percentage of cases filed (clearance rate)
and percent change in case filings by case type.
The Crime Victims Reparation Commission provides the following:
The Supreme Court would need to promulgate rules for the attorney assignment process
by the court. AOC would need to successfully recruit sufficient numbers of attorneys to
take on this representation. A training program for attorneys may be needed.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
The Crime Victims Reparation Commission provides the following:
SB26 changes the name of the Family Violence Act, this bill would need similar
language changes should SB26 be enacted.
HB123 creates a new cause of action for equitable relief which could be the subject of
representation under this bill.
ALTERNATIVES
AOC provides the following:
Without an appropriation, the judiciary court appointed attorney fund will not be
sufficient to cover the costs of contract attorneys to represent alleged domestic abuse
victims in all case types under Chapter 40 NMSA 1978. Alternatives to HB57 to ensure
prompt assistance for victims of domestic abuse could include:
Directing an appropriation to AOC for distribution to civil legal services
organizations to provide trained advocates to assist victims of domestic abuse and
facilitate access to community resources.
Legislation supporting the creation and piloting of a program to train community
justice workers to provide specialized assistance to victims of domestic abuse.
Increase funding for guardians ad litem in domestic relations cases to represent
children in contested custody cases.
FC/hj/SL2/sgs/hg