What was Texas SB 30?
Texas SB 30 was the 2025 nuclear-verdict reform package that died in conference committee. Defense firms are hiring senior trial lawyers now instead of waiting for the 2027 session. Senate Bill 30, carried by Sen. Charles Schwertner and sponsored in the House by Rep. Greg Bonnen, who also filed the related HB 4806, targeted how Texas juries award damages. As filed, the bill required a unanimous jury, instead of the usual ten of twelve under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 292, for pain-and-suffering awards. It set dollar thresholds above which a judge had to explain a noneconomic award if the defendant asked for a reduction. The Senate-passed version limited past medical expense evidence to amounts paid or, failing that, 300 percent of the 2025 Medicare fee schedule, and capped future medical expenses at 300 percent of Medicare.
Neither bill became law. HB 4806 never left the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee. SB 30 passed the Senate on April 16, 2025, and the House passed a narrower version on May 28. Both chambers named conferees on May 29 and 30, but no conference report came out before the session ended on June 2. The legislature meets in regular session every two years. The next regular session is 2027, which leaves roughly nineteen months of the pre-reform trial environment running from the day the bills failed.
- Jury must be unanimous on pain and suffering awards
- As filed
- Required (s. 41.151)
- Passed Senate
- Dropped
- House committee substitute
- Not included
- Standards for noneconomic awards
- As filed
- Awards must rest on evidence of the nature, duration and severity of the injury, and arguing values with no rational connection to the facts is reversible error (s. 41.151)
- Passed Senate
- Kept in rewritten form (s. 41.151): awards must be grounded in the evidence and can't be used to punish, and anchoring arguments with no rational connection to the facts are reversible error
- House committee substitute
- Not included
- Review of large noneconomic awards
- As filed
- On request, the judge must explain awards above $250,000 for mental anguish with bodily injury, $1 million for wrongful death or emotional injury, or for physical pain the lesser of 3 times medical expenses or $100,000 per year of life expectancy
- Passed Senate
- Removed
- House committee substitute
- Not included
- Past medical expense evidence
- As filed
- Amounts paid, else up to 150 percent of the median commercial payer rate in the Texas All Payor Claims Database
- Passed Senate
- Amounts paid, else up to 300 percent of the 2025 Medicare fee schedule, adjusted for inflation
- House committee substitute
- Amounts paid by third-party payors, else a list of evidence: Medicare allowable, workers' compensation fee guideline, 50th percentile allowed amount, or billed charges
- Future medical expenses
- As filed
- Reasonable value, using the same database
- Passed Senate
- Reasonable value, capped at 300 percent of Medicare
- House committee substitute
- Same list of evidence as past expenses
- Letter of protection disclosure
- As filed
- Required
- Passed Senate
- Required
- House committee substitute
- Required
| Provision | As filed (March 13) | Passed Senate (April 16) | House committee substitute |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury must be unanimous on pain and suffering awards | Required (s. 41.151) | Dropped | Not included |
| Standards for noneconomic awards | Awards must rest on evidence of the nature, duration and severity of the injury, and arguing values with no rational connection to the facts is reversible error (s. 41.151) | Kept in rewritten form (s. 41.151): awards must be grounded in the evidence and can't be used to punish, and anchoring arguments with no rational connection to the facts are reversible error | Not included |
| Review of large noneconomic awards | On request, the judge must explain awards above $250,000 for mental anguish with bodily injury, $1 million for wrongful death or emotional injury, or for physical pain the lesser of 3 times medical expenses or $100,000 per year of life expectancy | Removed | Not included |
| Past medical expense evidence | Amounts paid, else up to 150 percent of the median commercial payer rate in the Texas All Payor Claims Database | Amounts paid, else up to 300 percent of the 2025 Medicare fee schedule, adjusted for inflation | Amounts paid by third-party payors, else a list of evidence: Medicare allowable, workers' compensation fee guideline, 50th percentile allowed amount, or billed charges |
| Future medical expenses | Reasonable value, using the same database | Reasonable value, capped at 300 percent of Medicare | Same list of evidence as past expenses |
| Letter of protection disclosure | Required | Required | Required |
What does SB 30's failure mean for Texas defense firms?
SB 30's failure leaves two realities for Texas defense firms. First, the verdict pattern targeted by the bills keeps running. Second, defense firms can't build a hiring plan around a law that might arrive in two years. Firms need trial lawyers who can handle the next major case on staff in 2026, before any 2027 vote.
Here's what we're seeing in the Texas searches we run: defense firms are hiring at higher class years, and they're stretching above their historical bands to lock in proven trial experience.
Which Texas defense practices are hiring?
In the Texas searches we ran in early 2026, defense hiring was concentrated in the practices that draw the biggest verdicts. Trucking and commercial transportation defense, premises liability for retail and hospitality, construction defect on large projects, and product liability show active senior-level openings across Houston and Dallas. These insurance defense firms want first-chair trial experience and a willingness to try cases that big-firm peers would settle.
Some firms staffing the largest Texas trials will now hire from plaintiff practices or out-of-state commercial litigation, as long as the candidate can stand up in front of a jury. Trial credit now counts for more than pedigree.
Why do senior trial lawyers cost more in Texas now?
In the Texas searches we run, senior trial lawyers have more bargaining power than they did a few years ago, and we think the failure of SB 30 is part of why. With no statutory shield coming, the lawyer who can try a hard case in front of a Texas jury is a firm's main way to manage exposure.
When a Texas firm wants a senior trial lateral right now, the concession we tell the firm to be ready to make is on origination credit and partnership timing, not on base alone. These lawyers know what they're worth.
Will Texas tort reform come back in 2027?
Reform may well come back in 2027. Legislators can begin filing bills for the 90th Legislature on November 9, 2026, and the session convenes January 12, 2027. Both chambers did pass medical-cost evidence rules in 2025, in different forms, so in our view that is the likeliest ground for a compromise. If a compromise passes, exposure on some cases drops and the hiring math shifts with it. If it fails again, the current pattern runs another two years.
Our read is that a firm should hire through the 2027 session as if reform isn't coming, and treat any relief that does pass as upside rather than the plan. The talent stays scarce either way, and firms that wait for 2027 will hire behind competitors that didn't.
- March 13, 2025SB 30 (Schwertner) and HB 4806 (Bonnen) filed
- March 31Senate committee hearing on SB 30, left pending
- April 14Senate committee reports SB 30 as substituted
- April 16Senate passes SB 30
- May 7HB 4806 heard in House committee and left pending. It never moves
- May 21House committee reports a substitute SB 30
- May 28House passes SB 30 as amended
- May 29 and 30Senate refuses to concur and asks for a conference committee. Both chambers name conferees
- June 2Session ends with no conference report
- January 12, 202790th regular session convenes
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| March 13, 2025 | SB 30 (Schwertner) and HB 4806 (Bonnen) filed |
| March 31 | Senate committee hearing on SB 30, left pending |
| April 14 | Senate committee reports SB 30 as substituted |
| April 16 | Senate passes SB 30 |
| May 7 | HB 4806 heard in House committee and left pending. It never moves |
| May 21 | House committee reports a substitute SB 30 |
| May 28 | House passes SB 30 as amended |
| May 29 and 30 | Senate refuses to concur and asks for a conference committee. Both chambers name conferees |
| June 2 | Session ends with no conference report |
| January 12, 2027 | 90th regular session convenes |
Common Questions
What would SB 30 have changed about Texas jury verdicts?
Did Texas SB 30 pass?
How are Texas defense firms hiring after SB 30 failed?
Open insurance defense searches
Each firm is confidential. We name the firm before anything about you is shared, and we don't share résumés or names without your permission.
- Insurance Defense Litigation AttorneyWest Palm Beach, FL · In office · 1 to 8 years
- Insurance Defense Litigation AttorneySt. Petersburg, FL · In office · 1 to 8 years
- Insurance Defense and Business Litigation AssociateTampa, FL · In office · 0 to 5 years$85,000 to $175,000
- Casualty Insurance Defense AssociateSan Jose, CA · In office · 3+ years$145,000 to $180,000
- Insurance Defense Litigation AttorneyNaples, FL · In office · 1 to 8 years
- Insurance Defense AssociatePhiladelphia, PA · Hybrid · 3 to 8 years$135,000 to $165,000
- Product Liability Litigation AssociateLos Angeles, CA · In office · 2 to 4 years$225,000 to $295,000
- Insurance Defense AttorneyTampa Bay area, FL · In office · 2+ years$135,000 to $200,000
- Insurance Defense AssociateDallas, TX · In office · 2 to 7 years$130,000 to $175,000
- Insurance Defense AttorneyTampa, FL · 3 to 8 years