SB2127

For the chief justice’s assignment of qualified former or retired appellate judges to a court of appeals, the general service requirement falls from 96 to 72 months; at least 48 months must still be appellate service. The comparable experience threshold for placement on a regional retired/former-judge assignment list also falls from 96 to 72 months. The separate retained exception for a retired Texas Supreme Court justice means the appellate service threshold is not universal. Final law, sections 1 and 3; Appellate assignment and retained exception.

The definition of “retired judge” is also adjusted for a person retired under the Texas County and District Retirement System after service in a statutory probate or statutory county court: that route now requires 72 instead of 96 months. The separate route for a retiree under the specified judicial retirement systems remains. This does not change every retirement system’s benefit eligibility. Final law, section 2; Retired-judge definitions.

Practicing law: A judge on the regional assignment-list route must certify willingness not to appear and plead as an attorney in any court in the administrative judicial region of the assignment for two years, rather than in every Texas court. For the appellate-assignment route, the two-year certification covers every court of appeals in Texas plus district, statutory probate and statutory county courts in counties under the assigned appellate court’s jurisdiction. That is narrower than the former statewide all-courts language, but not permission to practice in every other situation regardless of other ethics rules. Final law, sections 1 and 3; Prior appellate practice restriction; Prior regional-list restriction.

Both routes now require certification of willingness not to hear any matter involving a party who is a current or former client for the duration of the assignment. That client-related promise lasts for the assignment, distinct from the two-year practice restriction. Other eligibility safeguards remain, including education, disciplinary-history conditions and, on the regional list, substantial specialty experience. The separate civil-case procedure for objecting to an assigned trial judge is not repealed. Final law; Current list qualifications and duties; Separate assignment-objection procedure.

Overlapping 2025 laws: The official September 1 code combines these changes with HB40’s addition of business-court service and related education language, and SB293’s changes to the regional list’s public-sanction certifications, including exclusions for sanctions rescinded on review. Those provisions should not be credited to SB2127 or omitted by treating its standalone text as the entire current section. Combined appellate provision; Combined definitions; Combined assignment-list provision.

Changes during passage: All five operative versions of SB2127 match; both committees reported without amendments and the official amendment index lists none. The law applies to assignments made on or after September 1, 2025; earlier assignments remain under the prior law. Introduced; Senate committee; Senate-passed; House committee; Final law, sections 4–5; Version index; Amendment index.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

The changes may enlarge the pool of eligible visiting judges and make assignments more workable for former judges who practice law elsewhere. The tradeoffs are a lower experience threshold and narrower practice restrictions, paired with the added client-conflict certification. The act does not guarantee an assignment, faster case resolution or the absence of every conflict of interest. Final law.

The April 8 fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local fiscal impact and assumes implementation costs can be absorbed within existing resources. The act appropriates no money and does not quantify savings or new assignments. Official fiscal note.