A Benefit to Us All: The Harris County Courts’ Competency Restoration Docket
The Laken Riley Act: What Attorneys Should Know–Regardless of Practice Area
The First 100 Days: Practical Implementations of President Trump’s Executive Orders On Immigration
Law Day Contest Winners
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Copy to come Copy to come... By DAVID HARRELL
FROM THE EDITOR
A Note of Thanks By ANDREW PEARCE
OFF THE RECORD
Shared Goals: Finding Community Through a Refugee Soccer Team By ANIETIE AKPAN
A PROFILE IN PROFESSIONALISM Rinku Ray
Founder and Managing Attorney of Ray & Fahys, PLLC
COMMITTEE SPOTLIGHT
Uniting the Bench and Bar: 2025 Conference Connects Harris County Legal Community By DONNA THOMISEE
SECTION SPOTLIGHT
The HBA Social Security Bar: Serving Clients and the WellBeing of the Nation By JAMES PASSAMANO
LEGAL TRENDS
Texas Business Court Update: Where Jurisdiction Reigns Supreme By PHILLIP L. SAMPSON JR. and JULIA MAEVE KOWALSKY
MEDIA REVIEWS
The Majority: A Novel Reviewed by KATHERINE KUNZ
By DAVID HARRELL Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
As I pass the HBA President’s gavel to my good friend, Daniella Landers, who ushers in a historic presidency for the Houston Bar Association, I want to take a moment to reflect on the HBA’s achievements in the past year.
This year, the HBA had three focus areas: reinforcing the HBA’s role as a unifying organization for the Houston legal community; participating in the expansion of our business community; and, providing additional avenues for our members to serve the community.
Under the first initiative of acting as a unifying organization, we offered a one-time discount for members of specialty, affinity, and geographic bars who joined the HBA for the first time. Members from 15 of these bar associations took advantage of this opportunity and joined the HBA. I am excited that this initiative will continue under Daniella’s leadership in the coming Bar year.
The HBA Historical Committee dedicated concerted efforts to reinvigorate the Living History Project this past year. The committee has spearheaded this special initiative for decades to capture the stories of Houston’s legal icons, but recent years saw a decline in recording these histories. This year that trend reversed, with the committee capturing the experiences of 10 legendary attorneys and judges this Bar year. I want to thank these individuals for sharing their stories with us. I invite you to watch these interviews at hba.org/historical
As part of the second initiative, the HBA educated our members about Texas’ new Business Court and a new intermediate appellate court–the Fifteenth Court of Appeals–through high-quality CLE programming. These events, featuring Judge Sofia Adrogué and Judge Grant Dorfman of the Eleventh Division, based here in Houston, and Justice April Farris of the 15th Court of Appeals, were hosted by the HBA in August and January. The HBA also joined Texas’ other metro bar associations to co-host a program about the new court in October. These CLE programs focused on practice in the Business Court and helped to solidify Houston’s leadership in Texas commerce. We also disseminated information about the new court through articles in The Houston Lawyer, and that education should continue with information about the recent amendments to the Business Court statute.
And finally, under the third initiative, the HBA focused on elevating the visibility of our three ancillary organizations. The Houston Lawyer Referral Service hosted a special half-day CLE program on March 21–free to its members–focusing on proven business techniques for solo and small firms. The program drew 50 attendees and received excellent feedback. It ultimately resulted in new members
joining and taking advantage of HLRS’ services. Houston Volunteer Lawyers came together with the HBA Campaign to End Homelessness and Hunger Committee to host a walk-in ID Restoration Clinic this spring. This partnership among HVL, the committee, volunteers from Troutman Pepper Locke, and The Beacon was formed to help homeless individuals obtain the identification they need to access crucial resources. And our ancillary organization–the Dispute Resolution Center–welcomed Stephen “Steve” Kreider as its new Executive Director in March. Steve succeeded Nicholas Hall, who faithfully guided the DRC for 32 years..
Looking ahead, there are several developments affecting our profession on the horizon.
The Texas Supreme Court is considering whether to maintain, modify, or end ABA accreditation for Texas’ 10 law schools. The Court is accepting public comments through July 1. I am proud of the HBA’s role as lead convener of a recent CLE program exploring this issue, providing a platform to educate our members about the potential impact to our pipeline programs. I want to thank our coconveners, including Texas’ Metro Bars and law schools, especially University of Houston Law Center. This CLE is free for anyone to watch at hba.org/aba-cle
In that same vein, our profession is keeping an eye on developments in Washington, D.C. and how they could potentially affect our practice. This includes executive orders directly affecting law firms and the courts they practice in. While the HBA is not an advocacy group, we want to keep our members abreast of critical issues that affect the legal community and encourage HBA members to reflect on the rule of law and the Constitution’s checks and balances.
Finally, Harris County is asking the Texas Legislature to create five more civil district courts to address a critical need in our justice system. The HBA applauds this decision. The creation of new district courts is long overdue given it would be the first increase in civil district courts in over 40 years. While 29 civil district courts falls well short of the estimated 50 needed for Harris County, it will reduce the number of cases per court to 2,400 (still 20% higher than the number of new filings per civil district court in Dallas County) and allow courts to reduce the backlog of pending cases. The measure is part of the upcoming Legislative Special Session. Hopefully Harris County will begin to receive the additional judicial resources its residents and businesses require.
The HBA’s strength and potential would not be possible without our members who champion our work. Thank you for your dedication to the HBA.
President David Harrell
President-Elect
Daniella Landers
First Vice President Jeff Oldham
Second Vice President Collin Cox
Secretary Kaylan Dunn
Treasurer Greg Ulmer
Immediate Past President Diana Gomez
DIRECTORS (2023-2025)
Carter Dugan Greg Moore Colin Pogge
DIRECTORS (2024-2025)
Todd Frankfort
DIRECTORS (2024-2026)
Keri Brown Robert Painter
Seepan V. Parseghian Samantha Torres
EDITORIAL STAFF
Editor in Chief
Andrew Pearce
Associate Editors
Anna M. Archer Sydney Huber Bateman
Nikki Morris Lane Morrison
Braden Riley Kyle Steingreaber
Editorial Board
Anietie Akpan Jaclyn Barbosa
Jessica Crutcher Jonathan Day
Corey Devine Traci Gibson
Felicia Harris Hoss Jeffrey Johnston
David T. López Dave Louie
Emily Mott Ciara Perritano
Rinku Ray Hon. Josefina M. Rendón
Benjamin Roberts Jennifer Smith
Rachael Thompson Carey Worrell Nicolette Zulli
Managing Editor Maggie Martin
HBA OFFICE STAFF
Executive Director Vinh Ho
Associate Executive Director Ashley G. Steininger
Executive Assistant and Director of Board Affairs Gina Pendleton
Director, Marketing and Communications Maggie Martin
Communications Specialist Briana Ramirez
Education Coordinator Alli Hessel
Director, Projects and Events Bonnie Simmons
Projects and Events Coordinator Georgina Peña
Director, Membership and Technology Services Ron Riojas
ADVERTISING SALES DESIGN & PRODUCTION
QUANTUM/SUR 10306 Olympia Dr., Houston, TX 77042
281.955.2449 • www.quantumsur.com
Publisher Leonel E. Mejía
Production Manager Advertising
Marta M. Mejía Mary Chavoustie
By ANDREW PEARCE BoyarMiller ASSOCIATE EDITORS
ime really flies. In July of 2019, I joined the editorial board for Volume 57 of The Houston Lawyer. Today, I am writing my final “From the Editor” column for the last issue of Volume 62. I am incredibly thankful for the stories I was able to share these past six years. And I am equally proud of the stories we were able to bring to our readers over the course of this Bar year. But I will most cherish the time I have spent among a group of people I greatly admire. Almost beyond words, but I am going to give it a shot anyway.
for Volume 59. She has always been incredibly supportive, her work ethic is inspiring, and she lights up every room she enters. Both Anna and Anietie remained on the board after their terms as editor in chief ended and we are all better for it.
As Maya Angelou rightly noted, people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. She’s right, of course, and I always feel better when given the opportunity to spend time with Dave Louie, Lane Morrison, and Avi Moshenberg. And, if you have not read them yet, Dave Louie and Lane Morrison authored two of my favorite articles (in the Jan/Feb 2024 and Nov/Dec 2024 issues, respectively) and one of the pieces I am most proud of is a tribute to T. Gerald Treece that I wrote with Avi Moshenberg for the Nov/ Dec 2020 issue. Thanks largely to Avi, I felt that piece captured the spirit, the charm, and the brilliance of a man who made an impact on countless people that is still very much felt to this day.
I also want to acknowledge a few of the people who have been tremendous role models during my time on the board.
Anna Archer was editor in chief for Volume 58 in 2020-2021. Her ability to survive and, in fact, thrive during COVID is a testament to her work ethic, leadership, and determination. She has since deployed those traits to take Behind the Lines: The Houston Lawyer Podcast to new heights, including the recent milestone of 7,500 downloads! If you have not already, please check it out at hba.org/thehoustonlawyer!
Anietie Akpan was the editor in chief the next year
Meanwhile, in her first year on the board, Rinku Ray contributed in numerous ways this Bar year, volunteering to serve as guest editor or to contribute fabulous content when and where needed. She was also the driving force behind this issue on immigration, helping to spotlight an issue of significant importance to all of us. I am excited to see how she will continue to contribute going forward.
And last, but by no means least, is Maggie Martin, our managing editor. This magazine would not exist but for Maggie’s tireless efforts, yet she only gives credit to me (and others), while humbly refusing to accept the praise and the credit that is rightfully owed to her.
As I get older, I find myself increasingly focused on two goals: first, hoping those people who have made a meaningful difference in my life know it; and second, hoping to accomplish my first goal by making sure I let those people know by telling them directly (or, in this case, writing it). I could fill this magazine with the reasons why I am thankful for everyone I have been given the privilege to work with during my time on the board, including a well-earned congratulations to Nikki Morris, who will take the helm as editor in chief next year, but space is limited. So, I will let them know when I see them. My sincere hope for each of you is that you will do the same for those who have made a meaningful difference in your life.
As always, I want to express my sincere appreciation to everyone who contributed to this issue, including the associate editors, guest editors, and editorial board members who made it happen, and my final thanks to you, the readers, who make it all worthwhile
By ANDREW PEARCE
Our highlight of the sixth (and final) Harris County specialty court begins with a clarification. The Competency Restoration (CR) docket is technically not a specialty court (which are statutorily created); rather, it is a docket, organized by the Harris County Criminal District Court judges and resourced by the county. The CR docket brings us full circle to our first profile of the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Court, a companion to the JBCR profiled by Anna Archer in our July/August 2024 issue.
I had the privilege of learning about the CR docket by visiting with Judge Natalia “Nata” Cornelio.1 Judge Cornelio received her B.A. at New York University and then her J.D. at the University of Chicago Law School. Her interest in public service and her care for others inspired her to move to Houston to begin work as a Federal Public Defender in 2011 and then led her to run for judge of the 351st Criminal District Court, where she has served since 2021. And although I was anxious to hear about
her involvement with the CR docket, she almost always wanted to focus on others instead, starting with Judge Mark Kent Ellis.
Judge Ellis, former judge of the 351st Criminal District Court, first conceived of the idea that the Harris County Courts should handle the cases of those who have been found mentally incompetent when faced with criminal charges in a single place and create a special “docket.” Thus, rather than have each district court manage individual competency cases as they came up, each district court could refer any such case to the special docket, where the judge, prosecutors, and defense lawyers would develop expertise to address the challenges presented by such cases. What Judge Ellis started was the first of its kind in Texas and remains a model across the state and the country. The process begins when the state, the defense, or the court makes a suggestion of incompetence for an individual arrested in Harris County. Once a qualified mental health professional renders an opinion of incompetence, the question then becomes how best to proceed as permitted and required by law. A person is incompetent to stand trial only in the unique event the person does not have 1) sufficient present ability to consult with the person’s lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or 2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against them.2 According to Judge Cornelio, defendants’ inability to meaningful understand and participate in criminal proceedings is most commonly due to the presence of a significant mental illness, but can also be due to the presence of a significant intellectual disability, brain injury, or combination. A finding of incompetency pauses the criminal proceedings and triggers procedures under a discrete portion of the criminal code that can involve the dismissal of charges but otherwise can require mandatory inpatient or outpatient commitment of the person to a mental health facility or maximum security hospital
until such person is “restored” to competency, subject to statutory time limitations. The restoration process involves diagnosis, treatment, and education to those suffering from some form of brain damage or mental illness, when possible, so they can understand the legal process, effectively communicate with their counsel and, ultimately, appear in court. Courts maintain responsibility over such cases. In cases where a person cannot be restored to competency within the statutory time limits, the person might be subject to long term civil commitment on an inpatient or outpatient basis.
The mission of the CR docket is to best manage the complex, challenging, and unique issues and needs presented by the circumstances where a defendant facing criminal charges has been found incompetent, and, in cases where restoration is possible, needs hospitalization or intensive treatment, education, and resources, to be well enough to respond to their charges. The docket is staffed by prosecutors and appointed counsel who are specially qualified to represent those who are severely mentally ill or intellectually disabled, and representatives from mental health service providers regularly participate in court proceedings, providing critical information and resources to the court and parties.3 Today, Judge Ellis, Judge Lori Gray, and Judge Cornelio handle the CR docket, with Judge Ellis doing most of the heavy lifting as a visiting judge. Judge Cornelio was quick to note that the success of the program is also thanks to the active participation of outstanding defense lawyers, highly qualified and compassionate prosecutors, a patient, kind, and experienced court staff, and numerous medical professionals at The Harris Center for Mental Health and IDD, the John S. Dunn Behavioral Sciences Center, and elsewhere. Thanks to their assistance, and numerous others, the Harris County Criminal District Courts are better able to manage the 1,300 or so cases of individuals at any given time who are on their journey of being restored, who have been restored,
or those who are unable to be restored.
As Judge Cornelio noted, this program serves a “uniquely vulnerable” segment of our population. For a period, efforts toward a resolution of the criminal charges are put on pause as the program seeks to identify the right people and resources to best assist those individuals needing treatment. Yet, at the same time, the public’s involvement, exposure, and knowledge of this program, including the victims, often lends itself to finding an effective means of alternative dispute resolution and a greater understanding by everyone involved.
The docket presents an opportunity for the courts to better recognize the needs of the populations involved. One challenge that has existed across the state for defendants found incompetent is a long wait for state hospital beds for restoration. For defendants in jail, whose criminal charges are paused while they await restoration services, wait times for hospital beds have grown as long as two
years in some instances. The streamlined Competency Restoration docket aided in bringing to light the growing number of defendants who were in the jail awaiting, not trial, but competency restoration services. But in May of 2020, Harris County began the Jail Based Competency Restoration Program, a certified competency restoration program inside the Harris County Jail).4 By the numbers, the program’s success is evident. For example, in 2022, the restoration rate was 93% and the average length of stay was only 55 days.5 That number represents a dramatic decrease from just a few years earlier. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of individuals declared incompetent to stand trial in the Harris County Jail grew, with people waiting an average of 500 days to receive treatment from the State Hospital System in order to be restored to competency.6 The JBCR program was critical in alleviating some of the delays by defendants awaiting competency restoration services. And,
among individuals opined competent to stand trial at the completion of the program, the JBCR program participants had a recidivism rate of only 6%.7
The “unlikely to restore” cases, Judge Cornelio notes, are especially difficult. That said, there are a few options which enable the different stakeholders to decide how to best proceed. One option is dismissal, while also trying to determine if there are options available to place the individual safely in the community. Or, a person may be civilly committed while their case is pending, sometimes on an out-patient basis, unless that person presents a danger to themselves or others. In those cases, a person can be committed to a state-supported hospital facility. Unfortunately, the wait for such civil commitment beds may be as long as two years. Last, a case may be dismissed, with the possibility of an individual being referred to a committed facility for treatment.
In FY 2023, the number of assessments
referred to competency restoration programming increased by more than 100 referrals from the previous year.8 Although the number of criminal cases in which defendants have been found incompetent represents a small fraction of cases across Texas, the number is growing, and the needs involved in such cases might require those affected to have to accept that a person will never be well enough to answer for their charges, or that an alternate disposition to prosecution is in the best interest of justice and all involved. The judges, lawyers, mental health professionals, and staff serving the CR docket are up to the task of working hard within the framework of the law to find the most just disposition for such cases.
Learning about the CR program reminded me of something I was once told in law school when learning about constitutional protections. “It protects the best of us, and it protects the worst of us, and that is the only way it protects all of
us.” I feel something similar can be said about the JBCR program. It benefits those in our community with mental health issues who are charged with crimes and, in doing so, ultimately benefits both the victims and the public at large.
During our conversation, when I asked how it came to be that Judge Cornelio ended up in Houston by way of New York and Chicago, she said it was “a stroke of luck.” I would say the luck is all ours, thanks to her and everyone else who supports and contributes to this exceptional program.
Andrew Pearce is the Litigation Group Chair at BoyarMiller. He is the 2024-2025 editor in chief of The Houston Lawyer
1. Interview with Judge Natalia “Nata” Cornelio (May 22, 2025) (on file with author).
2. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. § 46B.003(a).
3. The Harris Center for Mental Health and IDD Jail-Based Competency Restoration Program, https://texasjcmh. gov/media/xxiogjok/the-harris-county-jbcr-program. pdf (last visited May 26, 2025).
4. Id
5. Id
6. The Harris Center for Mental Health and IDD Jail-Based Competency Restoration Program Fiscal Year 2023 Status Report, https://www.theharriscenter.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/JBCR%20FY%202023%20Status%20 Report-compressed.pdf (last visited May 26, 2025).
7. Id
8. Id
By ANNE CHANDLER
Introduction
The legal landscape for noncitizens in Texas is shifting rapidly. Attorneys across practice areas—including criminal defense, family law, employment, and beyond—should understand recent laws and proposed bills that increase the risk of detention and deportation for noncitizen clients. Federal policy shifts and state immigration priorities have dramatically expanded the reach of immigration enforcement in Texas.
Signed into law by President Trump on January 29, 2025, the Laken Riley Act (S. 5, 119th Cong.) amends our nation’s immigration laws to expand Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authority over detention of noncitizens. The Act was named after a 22-year-old nursing student murdered by a Venezuelan migrant in Georgia in early 2024. Key changes to our laws resulting from the passage of the Laken Riley Act include:
• Expanded Mandatory Detention: For decades, ICE has had the authority to detain without bond noncitizens who are convicted of certain serious offenses.1 The Laken Riley Act significantly expands ICE’s detention authority to include detaining noncitizens who are charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or who admit to specific offenses—including burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting,
assault on a law enforcement officer, or any offense involving death or serious bodily injury. Of note, the Laken Riley Act does not explicitly prohibit retroactive application.
• No Bond: Noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act § 236(c)(1)(E) are ineligible for bond hearings before an immigration judge. ICE has sole discretion to grant parole under Immigration and Nationality Act § 236(a)(2) and § 212(d)(5), a power significantly curtailed by recent Executive Orders.
The Act also empowers state attorney generals with new legal authority:
• Authority to Sue DHS: If a state shows more than $100 in harm, it may sue DHS for failing to detain noncitizens (Immigration and Nationality Act § 236(f)). In addition, states can sue to challenge ICE’s use of discretion to release noncitizens from detention.
• Override Federal Discretion: States may challenge federal decisions to grant parole, release, or bond.
• Visa Enforcement Authority: States can sue the U.S. Department of State for not implementing visa restrictions required under federal law.
• Roy, a DACA recipient from Mexico, is involved in a car accident where another driver is seriously injured. Roy is not at fault in the car accident but is cited for driving with an expired license. Because serious bodily injury occurred and he was cited for a criminal offense, ICE could detain him without bond.
• Linda, an undocumented mother from El Salvador, is cited for shoplifting after running out of a store with a gallon of milk while chasing her child. Although the incident is a Class C misdemeanor under Tex. Penal Code § 31.03(e)(1), her
citation could still result in mandatory ICE detention.
• Arrests=Risk: Arrests, even without convictions, pose serious detention risks for noncitizens, especially nonLegal Permanent Residents. Under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has the authority to arrest and detain a noncitizen based on probable cause of removability, without requiring a criminal conviction.2 When a noncitizen is arrested by local or state law enforcement, ICE may issue an immigration detainer (Form I-247A), requesting that the agency notify ICE prior to the individual’s release and continue custody for up to 48 hours beyond the scheduled release time. Even if charges are dismissed or the arrest does not lead to a conviction, the mere fact of an arrest can trigger ICE involvement and lead to detention and removal proceedings.
• Expanded Enforcement Locations: ICE may arrest individuals at municipal, criminal, and immigration courts, parole/probation offices, and at schools, churches, and hospitals.3
• Domestic Violence Cases Pose Specific Risk: Though the Laken Riley Act defers to state law for offense definitions, ICE may independently interpret what constitutes “serious bodily injury” under the Immigration and Nationality Act § 236(c) (1)(E). Even clients arrested but not convicted—especially in domestic incidents where they were not the aggressor—may face long-term detention. Once ICE issues a detainer, it may take months or years to evaluate the necessary facts to make a determination of whether an immigrant is eligible for release from detention pursuant to acts such as the Violence Against Women Act. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(a) grants immigration judges authority to conduct bond hearings, but excludes cases where the noncitizen is subject to mandatory detention under § 236(c) and the Laken Riley
Act. This poses risks for noncitizens charged in domestic incidents, regardless of conviction.
• Pre-Travel Risk Review: Attorneys should review immigration, criminal history, and client involvement in political speech for all noncitizen clients prior to travel abroad, especially for male clients from Venezuela.
• Citations Can Trigger Detention: Even citations for petty theft or shoplifting can lead to ICE detention as ICE has broad discretion to arrest and detain noncitizens pending a decision on whether the individual should be removed from the United States.4
• Help Clients Mitigate Risk: Help your noncitizen client prepare in the event they are detained or deported by law enforcement personnel. Guide your client to review the Texas Immigrant Alliance (TIA) bilingual kits and safety planning tools: texasimmigrantalliance.org. If your client is low-income, encour-
age your client to seek help from organizations like Houston Volunteer Lawyers to obtain documents, such as Powers of Attorney, that would allow others to protect your client’s interests in case of detention.
Attorney Tips: Going Beyond the Basics
• Conduct FOIA Reviews: Run FOIA checks to clarify prior immigration decisions and avoid errors on future applications.
• Watch for Misrepresentation Risks: Ensure noncitizen clients avoid unintentional misrepresentations on governmental forms—misrepresentations could be used to justify detention.
• Monitor Legal Challenges: The law’s lack of explicit protection against retroactive enforcement may be vulnerable to constitutional challenges.
• If Your Client Is In Immigration Detention, Determine Bond Eligibility: Be prepared to request a Joseph hearing to contest ICE’s application
of mandatory detention.5
• File Habeas Petitions: When ICE misapplies the Laken Riley Act—especially retroactively or in cases involving minor offenses—file habeas corpus challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
• If Handling Immigration Matters, Flag Inadmissibility Risks Early: Identify and address all possible Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a) inadmissibility grounds at the waiver or adjustment application stage.
Texas Case Study: SB 4 and SB 8
Recent Texas laws complement federal efforts:
• SB 4, 88th Leg., 4th Spec. Sess. (Tex. 2023): Creates new state crimes for Illegal Entry, Illegal Reentry, and Refusal to Return to a Foreign Nation. The law would give powers to state law enforcement officers traditionally held by ICE officers and turn local judges into immigration judges who have the power to order deportations—a role traditionally reserved for federal courts and administrative immigration judges. The law is temporarily blocked and under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.6
• SB 8, 89th Leg. (Tex. 2025) (pending): Would require counties with more than 100,000 residents to enter into ICE 287(g) agreements, which deputize local law enforcement officers to perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions, such as identifying, processing, and in some cases, detaining noncitizens encountered during policing activities.
Jocelyn’s Law (Federal Bill - Pending)
A separate federal bill, also called Jocelyn’s Law, has been introduced in the U.S. House (H.R. ___, 119th Cong.) to expand mandatory ICE detention to any noncitizen arrested or convicted of theft. Though not yet enacted, the proposal re-
flects continued efforts to tie local criminal enforcement directly to federal immigration consequences.
A Larger Context: The Rise of State-Led Immigration Enforcement
These federal and state developments reflect a clear shift of immigration enforcement moving from a federal model to a hybrid federal-state enforcement. Texas exemplifies this transformation and is on the frontlines of immigration enforcement:
• Texas Attorney General’s unprecedented 287(g) agreement signed in late January 2025 with DHS. This agreement empowers the Texas Attorney General’s civil investigators to perform immigration enforcement functions.
• Civil Investigations of Nonprofits: Texas Attorney General’s office has launched civil probes into immigrant-serving nonprofits for alleged unlawful conduct, including allegations that nonprofits have violated federal criminal laws by transporting or harboring undocumented persons.
• Prior Legislation: SB 4, 85th Leg. (Tex. 2017): In 2017, Texas prohibited all local governments and law enforcement agencies from enacting policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Codified in Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.053 and Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 370.003. In Texas, local officials who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding detention requests can face criminal and civil penalties.
Legal status does not guarantee protection from detention. This was true before the Laken Riley Act was passed. However, the passage of the Laken Riley Act and the immigration policy priorities of our state and federal government should prompt all attorneys who serve noncitizen clients to follow some best practices:
• Inform your clients that legal status does not guarantee their protection from detention or deportation.
• Ensure clients are aware that arrests, citations, or even past criminal charges can lead to detention and deportation, especially for individuals who are not legal permanent residents.
• Encourage your clients to be prepared to protect their children, their health, and their assets in the event they are detained or deported.
• Educate your clients on their rights. Texas and federal actions related to immigration enforcement are increasingly coordinated, so noncitizens should be aware of their rights when interacting with local or state law enforcement personnel.
In short, while the Laken Riley Act may have sparked headlines, it is one part of a broader legal movement—with Texas at the forefront, of embedding immigration enforcement into local law enforcement and legal systems. Attorneys, regardless of whether they practice family law, employment, criminal defense, or probate law, must be ready to guide their clients through this rapidly changing terrain.
1. 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(2024).
2. Id
Anne Chandler is the executive director at Texas Immigration Law Council.
3. U.S. Immigration and Customs, Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Protected Areas and Courthouse Arrests, https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/ero/ protected-areas (last visited on June 5, 2025); see also Department of Homeland Security, Statement from a DHS Spokesperson on Directives Expanding Law Enforcement and Ending the Abuse of Humanitarian Parole, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/01/21/statement-dhsspokesperson-directives-expanding-law-enforcementand-ending-abuse (last visited June 5, 2025).
4. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2024).
5. A Joseph hearing is a special type of bond hearing, named after Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 1999), in which a noncitizen argues that mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) does not apply.
6. See Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 42, Cause No. 1:24-cv-00008-DAE, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
By SANG M. SHIN, CHRISTIAN TRIANTAPHYLLIS, and KELLY COBB
Introduction
The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have been marked by a dramatic transformation of U.S. immigration policy. Through a series of sweeping executive orders, the administration has sought to fundamentally reshape the legal, procedural, and humanitarian landscape for foreign nationals, employers, and the legal community. These changes have not only intensified scrutiny and enforcement but have also triggered significant legal and political responses. This article provides a high-level analysis of how these executive orders are being implemented, the immediate and long-term impacts on key immigration programs, and the evolving responses from the courts and Congress.
One of the most immediate effects of the new executive orders is the prospective imposition of heightened
scrutiny on visa applications, particularly those related to employment. The “America First” Trade Policy, which directs a review and potential renegotiation of trade agreements, such as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”), has had some initial impact on the adjudication of work visas. We believe scrutiny will continue to increase over the next year.
Executive Order 14161, “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” mandates the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of State to implement stricter “enhanced vetting” for all visa applicants. This will likely result in an increase in administrative processing, with foreign nationals experiencing extended delays at U.S. consulates and embassies abroad. The backlog for visa appointments is growing, and in some cases, scheduling has been suspended for extended periods.
Applicants from countries designated as “high risk” are beginning to face intense scrutiny, regardless of their current nationality or citizenship. During visa interviews, consular officers are now routinely inquiring about applicants’ ties to these countries, and requiring additional security clearances. The inter-agency nature of the order is also leading to a rise in Requests for Evidence (“RFEs”) and denials for filings made with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”).
The “America First” Trade Policy is continuing to affect work visa categories, especially those tied to trade agreements. TN visa applicants under the USMCA are encountering more rigorous questioning and documentation requirements at consular interviews and ports of entry. Similarly, applicants for E-1 (treaty trader), E-2 (treaty investor), E-3 (specialty occupation workers from Australia), and H-1B1 (specialty occupation workers from Chile and
Singapore) visas are also experiencing heightened scrutiny.
We have observed that many of our clients are experiencing increased uncertainty and delays in securing work authorization for foreign professionals. Many applicants are being asked to provide proof of how the individual and employer will better the economy and/or not displace U.S. workers. The cumulative effect could increase backlogs on the ability of U.S. businesses to attract and retain global talent. Immigration attorneys are advising clients to anticipate longer processing times, prepare for additional documentation requests, and consider alternative strategies for workforce planning.
The administration’s focus on enforcement extends well beyond the visa application process. There has been a marked escalation in worksite enforcement activities and a renewed emphasis on employer compliance and the integrity of the employment verification process.
Employers across a range of industries are reporting a significant uptick in I-9 audits, unannounced raids, and worksite visits conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and DHS. These enforcement actions are targeting both large and small employers. There is a particular focus on sectors that have traditionally relied on foreign labor, such as agriculture, hospitality, healthcare, and technology.
The audits are more comprehensive and aggressive than in previous years. Investigators are scrutinizing not only the accuracy of I-9 forms but also the underlying documentation and recordkeeping practices. Employers found to be out of compliance may face substantial fines, reputational damage, and, in some cases, criminal prosecution.
Executive Order 14010, “Protecting the American People Against Inva-
sion,” authorizes DHS to delegate enforcement authority to state and local law enforcement officials. This has led to increased collaboration between federal and local agencies, with more frequent inquiries into the immigration status of employees during routine law enforcement encounters.1 Employers are being advised to ensure that all employees have valid documentation readily available and to implement robust compliance programs to mitigate the risk of enforcement actions.
The heightened enforcement environment has prompted our clients to reevaluate their hiring and compliance practices. Many are investing in enhanced training for human resources personnel, conducting internal audits of I-9 records, and seeking legal counsel to navigate the complex and evolving regulatory landscape. Attorneys are playing a critical role in advising clients on best practices, responding to government inquiries, and representing
employers in enforcement proceedings.
The administration’s executive orders have also targeted humanitarian programs, resulting in significant consequences for vulnerable populations and the communities that support them.
Executive Order 14159, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” directed DHS to limit designations of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and to curtail the issuance of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) based on TPS. As a result, TPS for Venezuelans and other nationalities was rescinded. This initially left thousands of individuals who previously had protection from removal and work authorization in a state of uncertainty. On March 31, 2025, Judge Edward Chen, of the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, placed a hold on this cancellation, temporarily
allowing for TPS to continue for Venezuelans.
EO 14159 also ended the CBP One and parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. These programs had provided a lifeline for individuals fleeing violence, persecution, and instability in their home countries. The termination of these programs may close off important avenues for humanitarian relief and increase the risk of removal for those who previously benefited from parole.2
The administration’s actions have sent a clear signal that humanitarian relief implemented by the Biden administration is no longer a priority. The revocation of Biden-era executive orders related to civil immigration enforcement, migration and asylum seekers, reunification of families, and the resettlement of refugees has further narrowed the scope of available protections. Attorneys representing vulnerable populations are facing new challenges in advocating for clients and should closely monitoring ongoing litigation and policy developments.
A significant new requirement introduced by the administration is the mandatory registration and collection of biometrics for all foreign nationals, regardless of their immigration status.
The executive orders direct DHS to implement a comprehensive registration system for foreign nationals. This includes the collection of fingerprints and other biometric data. This initiative is intended to enhance national security and improve the government’s ability to track and monitor noncitizens within the United States.
The rollout of the biometric registration program has been accompanied by confusion and logistical challenges. Our office has observed an uptick in foreign nationals, particularly those in nonimmigrant categories who have not previously been subject to such re-
quirements, being uncertain about the process and the implications for their status. Delays in scheduling biometric appointments and processing applications will likely add to the uncertainty.
Employers are being advised to inform foreign national employees of the new requirements and to assist them in maintaining up-to-date documentation. Attorneys are counseling clients on the steps necessary to comply with the registration process and are preparing for potential increases in processing times and administrative burdens.
The expansion of biometric data collection has raised concerns about privacy and civil liberties. Advocacy organizations are questioning the scope and security of the data being collected, as well as the potential for misuse. Legal challenges may arise as the program is implemented and its impact becomes more clear.
The administration’s approach to student visas has shifted dramatically, with a wave of cancellations and terminations that have far-reaching implications for international students and educational institutions.
There has been a notable increase in the cancellation of F-1 student visas and the termination of SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) records.3 The reasons for these actions have expanded beyond traditional grounds. Reports indicate that students have lost status for activities, such as participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations, minor criminal infractions, and other conduct, including receiving speeding tickets, that previously would not have triggered such severe consequences.
Based on our conversations with clients and the review of their history, it appears that the definition of “criminal conduct” has been broadened to its maximum extent, making little distinction between serious and minor
offenses. We have observed a heightened feeling of fear and uncertainty with international students concerned about the potential for status loss and removal based on relatively minor infractions.
Educational institutions are grappling with the implications of these changes, as the loss of international students can have significant academic, cultural, and financial consequences. Attorneys are advising students on their rights and options, assisting with reinstatement applications, and representing clients in removal proceedings. The legal community is also monitoring the potential for litigation challenging the administration’s expansive interpretation of “criminal conduct.”
The administration has announced the introduction of a “Gold Card” visa program, offering a pathway to citizenship for individuals who pay a $5 million fee or more to the United States government.
The “Gold Card” is designed to attract foreign capital by providing a fasttrack to citizenship for high-net-worth individuals willing to make a substantial monetary contribution to the U.S. government. The program was initially touted as being ready for implementation within weeks of the announcement.
The implementation of the Gold Card visa program has stalled due to the need for congressional approval. The legal framework for granting citizenship based on investment requires legislative action, and Congress has yet to take up the proposal. The legal community is watching closely to see whether the program will gain traction, particularly considering the administration’s broader efforts to restrict other avenues of immigration.
The Gold Card visa proposal has generated interest among stakeholders who are involved in investment-based
immigration. However, the uncertainty surrounding the program’s implementation has created challenges for those seeking to take advantage of the new pathway. The legal community is advising clients to monitor developments closely and to consider alternative investment immigration options in the interim.
The sweeping nature of the executive orders has prompted legal challenges, with federal courts beginning to issue rulings on the scope and application of the new policies.
One of the most high-profile legal challenges has involved Executive Order 14160, limiting birthright citizenship. On January 23, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a Temporary Restraining Order blocking the implementation of the order. Litigation is ongoing in multiple jurisdictions, with
Choosing the right law firm changes everything. With unmatched resources, 250+ Attorneys, and $1 Billion recovered in the last 4 years, Thomas J. Henry Law is built to win — and ready to fight for you.
civil rights organizations, states, and cities challenging various aspects of the executive orders.
Despite the legal challenges, courts have generally continued to defer to the President’s broad authority over immigration. This deference is rooted in longstanding legal principles that recognize the executive branch’s primary role in setting immigration policy. However, as litigation progresses, courts are beginning to grapple with the limits of executive authority and the potential for overreach.
Attorneys representing clients affected by the executive orders are closely monitoring judicial developments and adjusting their legal strategies accordingly. The evolving case law will play a critical role in shaping the future of immigration policy and the rights of foreign nationals.
The sweeping changes to immigra-
tion policy have galvanized industry groups, advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders, who are ramping up lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill.
Sectors such as technology, healthcare, agriculture, and higher education, which rely heavily on foreign talent, are urging legislators to push back against the most restrictive measures and to protect access to critical visa programs. The economic impact of the new policies is becoming increasingly apparent, with employers reporting difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled workers.
While Congress has thus far been slow to act, the mounting pressure from business and civil society may force a legislative response. Lawmakers are being called upon to address the unintended consequences of the executive orders, to provide relief for affected individuals, and to ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the global economy.
Attorneys are playing a key role in
advocating for legislative change, providing testimony before congressional committees, and working with industry groups to develop policy proposals. The legal community is also advising clients on how to engage in the legislative process and to make their voices heard.
The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have brought a dramatic shift in U.S. immigration policy, with far-reaching consequences for foreign nationals, employers, and the legal community. Heightened scrutiny, increased enforcement, the rollback of humanitarian protections, and new registration requirements are creating a challenging environment that demands vigilance and adaptability.
Attorneys must stay abreast of rapid developments and be prepared to advise clients on a wide range of issues, from compliance and enforcement to
litigation and legislative advocacy. Employers should review their hiring and compliance practices, invest in training and internal audits, and maintain open lines of communication with legal counsel.
The legal community has a critical role to play in advocating for fair and effective immigration policies, educating the public, and representing the interests of vulnerable populations. As the courts and Congress begin to respond, attorneys must be prepared to engage in policy debates and to defend the rights of their clients.
Sang M. Shin is a partner in Jackson Walker’s Houston office, focusing on business immigration and compliance. He advises multinational corporations, startups, and individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, including employment-based visas, compliance strategies, and govern-
ment investigations. Sang is recognized for his expertise in navigating complex immigration issues and for his commitment to client service.
Christian Triantaphyllis is a partner at Jackson Walker, where he leads the firm’s investment immigration practice. He represents foreign investors, developers, and regional centers in EB-5 and other investment-based immigration matters, and is recognized for his expertise in complex cross-border transactions. Christian is a frequent speaker and author on investment immigration topics.
Kelly Cobb is a partner in Jackson Walker’s Houston office, with a practice focused on labor and employment law, including immigration compliance, I-9 audits, and
workplace investigations. She counsels employers on best practices and represents clients in government enforcement actions. Kelly is known for her practical approach to complex compliance issues and her dedication to client advocacy.
Endnotes
1. “The 287(g) Program enhances the safety and security of our nation’s communities by allowing ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) to partner with state and local law enforcement agencies to identify and remove criminal aliens who are amenable to removal from the U.S.” Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE’s 287(g) Program, https://www.ice.gov/ identify-and-arrest/287g (last visited June 9, 2025).
2. Litigation-Related Update: Supreme Court stay of CHNV Preliminary Injunction, Release Date: June 6, 2025, https:// www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/litigation-related-updatesupreme-court-stay-of-chnv-preliminary-injunction (last visited June 9, 2025); see also DHS Releases Statement on Major SCOTUS Victory for Trump Administration and the American People on Ending the CHNV Parole Program, Release Date: May 30, 2025, https://www.dhs.gov/ news/2025/05/30/dhs-releases-statement-major-scotus-victory-trump-administration-and-american (last visited June 9, 2025).
3. Ashley Mowreader, International Student Visas Revoked, Inside Higher Ed, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/international-students-us/2025/04/07/where-studentshave-had-their-visas-revoked (last visited June 9, 2025); see also NAFSA: Association of International Educators, NAFSA Releases Initial Analysis of Visa Revocations and other Actions Targeting International Students and Scholars, https:// www.nafsa.org/reports-of-actions-targeting-internationalstudents (last visited June 9, 2025).
Law Day (May 1) is a designated national holiday. Since 1958, Law Day has been sponsored and promoted by the American Bar Association and the Houston Bar Association. The theme for 2025 was “The Constitution’s Promise: Out of Many, One.”
The HBA is proud to announce the winners of the 2025 HBA Law Day Contest, which invites Houston-area students to express their creativity and engage with important legal and civic themes
through art, photography, and editorial writing.
Thank you to our volunteers, participants, and partners. Learn more about this year’s contest winners by visiting hba.org/lawday.
And thank you to the Houston Bar Foundation for its generous grant making the Law Day Contest possible. Learn more about the HBF’s work at hba.org/foundation.
PHOTOGRAPHY CONTEST (GRADES 9-12)
“Working with the Constituents”
Stephen Castro, Blanson Career and Technical Education High School (Aldine ISD)
Teacher: William Brink (Second place in the statewide contest)
6TH-8TH GRADE POSTER CONTEST
“Rule of Law Fosters Unity and Diversity”
Jonah Wan, Mandarin Immersion Magnet School (Houston ISD)
Teacher: Thomas Sampson (second place in the statewide contest)
K-2ND GRADE POSTER CONTEST
“We the People”
Wren Schumacher, Jeanette Hayes Elementary (Katy ISD)
Teacher: Jazmin Hebert (third place in the statewide contest)
SPECIAL NEEDS POSTER CONTEST (GRADES 9-12)
“Going to Court”
Carlos Rosas, Bellaire High School (Houston ISD)
Teacher: Tracey Norris
The first place winner of this year’s essay contest was Aryan Singh, a 12th grade student at DeBakey High School for Health Professions (Houston ISD).
Aryan’s teacher was Qian Zhang. Read Aryan’s essay below.
By Aryan Singh
Imagine a symphony orchestra—varied instruments, each with a different voice, brought together in a common score. The American system of rule of law is such a harmony, blending disparate elements to unite a country held together not by likeness, but by shared principles set forth in the Constitution.
The Constitution is our sheet music to preserve balance. Separation of power functions like segments in a symphony with neither executive, legislative, nor judicial dominating. Checks and balances function like counter-melodies, ensuring the government remains just. Article I provides legislative power to Congress, representative to the public and setting tempo in governance. Article II positions the President behind the podium, conducting bills into action and preventing stagnation. Article III allots interpreting the score to the judiciary, with everything harmonizing according to constitutional principles. These structures keep power from centralization, ensuring governance through legal processes rather than force.
Consider Brown v. Board of Education. Before this case, segregation had established a lopsided, unbalanced harmony. The “separate but equal” doctrine enshrined in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 legalized segregation by race, but legal grounds to challenge discrimination existed in the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court decision in Brown dismantled segregation in public schools, precedent to later civil rights milestones. Brown v. Board did not remove racial injustices overnight, but it paved the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, guiding the country in a collaborative and harmonious direction.
Furthermore, much like a jazz orchestra in which musicians riff creatively in a set structure, the First Amendment produces cohesive democratic innovation. Freedom of speech, press, and assembly ensures a mix of opinion feeds into national debate. The Petition Clause ensures citizen petition to reform, holding legislators accountable to the people’s voices. Consider the Pentagon Papers (New York Times Co. v. United States), in which the Supreme Court ensured press freedom to publish classified information about government deception in Vietnam. This decision established that accountability and disclosure are part and parcel to our democratic system, with the people’s voices up front.
Critics argue that the law is imperfect and can be manipulated and slighted. But like a symphony honed by rehearsals, our legal system evolves as well. Amendment, judicial review, and civic activism offer avenues by which constitutional unifying principles can be honed. The Elastic Clause in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress tools to write legislation flexible enough to address such challenges as digital privacy. Landmark court rulings such as Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment, demonstrate how our Constitution enables justice to keep in step with society.
Ultimately, the rule of law does not eliminate differences but provides a framework to navigate them. It ensures every voice contributes to the nation’s composition while preventing dominance by any one group. The Constitution, our enduring masterpiece, balances structure with adaptability, ensuring America’s grand symphony of justice and democracy plays on for generations to come
is proud to support the
We are thrilled to congratulate our colleagues and its enduring commitment to advancing the legal profession and expanding access to legal services.
on their outstanding achievements and recognition for exceptional service to the HBA and greater Houston community. Travis has been honored with the 2025 HBA President’s Award acknowledging over 35 years of exemplary contributions and Denise has been celebrated with the Houston Bar Foundation’s 2025 James B. Sales Pro Bono Leadership Award for her dedication to pro bono e orts.
omm.com | 850+ Lawyers
Proudly supporting the Houston Bar Association and their dedication to providing access to justice and serving the rule of the law.
bakerlaw.com
The firms and corporations listed below have agreed to assume a leadership role in providing equal access to justice for all Harris County citizens. Each has made a commitment to provide representation in a certain number of cases through the Houston Volunteers Lawyers.
Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Angela Solice, Attorney at Law
Archie Law PLLC
Baker Botts L.L.P.
BakerHostetler LLP
Baker Hughes
Beck Redden LLP
Blank Rome LLP
Bracewell LLP
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
Chevron USA
Coane & Associates
Dentons US LLP
Elizabeth S. Pagel, PLLC
Eversheds Sutherland US LLP
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Fleurinord Law PLLC
Foley & Lardner LLP
Gibbs & Bruns LLP
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Gray Reed
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Halliburton
Hasley Scarano, L.L.P.
Haynes and Boone, LLP
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Jackson Walker LLP
Jenkins & Kamin, L.L.P.
King & Spalding LLP
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Law Office of Cindi L. Rickman
Law Offices of Omonzusi Imobioh
Limbaga Law
LyondellBasell Industries
Martin R.G. Marasigan Law Offices
McDowell & Hetherington LLP
McGarvey PLLC
Michael L. Fuqua P.C.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Northum Law
Norton Rose Fulbright
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Painter Law Firm PLLC
Reed Smith LLP
Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, LLP
Sanchez Law Firm
Shell USA, Inc.
Shipley Snell Montgomery LLP
Shortt & Nguyen, P.C.
Sidley Austin LLP
Squire Patton Boggs
The Ericksen Law Firm
The Jurek Law Group, PLLC
Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
Vasquez Waite
Vinson & Elkins LLP
Weycer, Kaplan, Pulaski & Zuber, P.C.
Wilson, Cribbs, & Goren, P.C.
Winstead PC
Winston & Strawn LLP
Yetter Coleman LLP
By ANIETIE AKPAN
Eugene Zilberman, a commercial and energy litigation partner at Houston’s Steptoe LLP, spends his weekdays navigating the legal cases in the courtroom, but on weekends, he trades in his suit for cleats, stepping onto the field with teammates whose journeys began worlds away.
The Amaanah Lions are a championship-winning football team in the Houston Football Association, and is one of several resources and programs provided by Amaanah Refugee Services’ (“Amaanah”), a Houston-based nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting refugees and immigrants as they rebuild their lives in the U.S. As part of this soccer league, Eugene doesn’t just play the beautiful game—he lives its deeper purpose: unity, empathy, and community. What began as a simple love for soccer has grown into a lifechanging bond with Houston’s refugee community, reshaping his understanding of both the game and the city he calls home.
Eugene is himself an immigrant. Born in Crimea, he briefly lived in Belarus until, at just three years old, his family immigrated to the U.S. He attended college at Rutgers University and obtained his law degree at University of Virginia School of Law. After practicing briefly in New York, he moved to Houston to start a career at a local boutique litigation firm, where he immediately felt a connection to the city’s vibrant, welcoming and inclusive energy: “A lot of people that I have met [in Houston] are not originally from here, having moved either for professional or personal reasons—including many people from abroad,” he shared. “People embrace outsiders here, welcome them with open arms, and look out for each other in a way that I cannot say is true for other places that I have lived.”
It was through navigating Houston’s global community that he first learned of the Amaanah Lions, a free soccer program
for young refugees and recent immigrants in Houston offering training and competitive play to individuals who don’t otherwise have access to organized sports. Soccer is the world’s most popular sport and is deeply embedded in the cultures of many immigrant communities, offering a kind of universal language that transcends spoken words and creates a space for immigrants to communicate and compete. The Amaanah program creates bonds on the field through teamwork, rules, and shared goals, and cultivates friendships across cultural boundaries, fostering belonging. Therefore, it was a quick and resounding “Yes!” from Eugene when a friend reached out asking him to join the Sunday soccer league that was in need of more players.
The Lions’ offers a space for Eugene to leave the stresses of work and life behind: “There is true camaraderie that exists that is hard to find in other faces of life. I don’t talk about work; I don’t think about it.” Eugene explained, “It’s truly about playing, competing, and striving toward a singular goal that I have always appreciated.”
Through his time on the team, Eugene has met a litany of refugees from countries like Nepal, Burma, Myanmar, Iraq, and Afghanistan–individuals who courageously shared their stories of displacement, resilience, and rebuilding their lives in a new land. In an era when immigration and immigrant law are heavily politicized, Eugene’s experience with Amaanah serves as a powerful reminder that the true ethos of the United States lies in embracing and celebrating the success of people from all corners of the globe.
To learn more about the Amaanah Lions, visit amaanahservices.org/amaanah-lions
Anietie Akpan is director corporate counsel of Mattress Firm, Inc. and a member of The Houston Lawyer’s editorial board.
RINKU RAY Founder and Managing Attorney of Ray & Fahys, PLLC
When people ask me what I do, I say I help people rediscover and document their extraordinary ability. I am privileged to work in a highly specialized area of immigration law focused on individuals Congress has designated as priority workers and placed in the highest EB-1A preference category for a green card. My clients are foreign-born professionals—innovators, scientists, athletes, and artists—who have already achieved what many would call the American Dream. I guide them as they seek the legal certainty of permanent residence in the United States. It is deeply meaningful work. I get to help brilliant individuals gain the security they need to keep contributing to the country they now call home.
But this goal has become increasingly complex under current federal policies, which have heightened enforcement priorities, narrowed access to certain legal pathways, and contributed to longer adjudication times for employment-based immigration petitions. Many of my clients have spent years—sometimes more than a decade—waiting patiently in line for a green card, following every rule and fulfilling every requirement. A flurry of executive actions, shifting adjudication standards, and restrictive interpretations have had a chilling effect not just on humanitarian cases, but on the very professionals our laws were designed to attract and retain.
In this complex landscape, the professional roles envisioned in the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct come fully to life. As an advisor, I offer my clients not just legal information, but an informed understanding of their rights and risks—grounded in the realities of an unpredictable system. As an advocate, I champion their petitions with precision and tenacity. As a negotiator, I pursue outcomes that reflect both legal advantage and ethical integrity. As an evaluator, I examine their careers with care, distilling decades of achievement into persuasive legal narratives. And, at times, as an intermediary, I help navigate the competing priorities of families, institutions, and timelines—balancing urgency with realism, hope with honesty.
But above all, I serve as a reminder: that their story matters. That their contributions are not just legally relevant—they are nationally important. That they belong.
Professionalism, to me, is not just about knowing the rules. It is about standing with others when the rules feel like walls. It means using the tools of our profession—analysis, advocacy, judgment—not just to win cases, but to affirm dignity. After nearly 30 years in practice, I still believe in the promise of this profession: that law, at its best, is a bridge between talent and opportunity, between hope and belonging.
And I am proud to walk that bridge with those whose brilliance deserves to be recognized—and whose presence makes this nation stronger.
By Donna Thomisee
On April 11, 2025, Houston’s legal community gathered at the elegant Hotel ZaZa in the Museum District for the Houston Bar Association (HBA) and Houston Bar Foundation’s Annual Civil/Appellate Bench Bar Conference.
This full-day event, now a cornerstone of the local legal calendar, drew judges and attorneys from across Harris County for a day of education, dialogue, and camaraderie.
Organized by the HBA Bench Bar Conference Committee, the event is designed to foster meaningful communication and collaboration between the judiciary and civil practitioners. Since its inception in 1992, the committee has worked tirelessly to create a space where shared challenges can be addressed in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect.
pellate practices to probate litigation and ethics in multi-party representation.
Beyond education, the event emphasized connection. Attendees lunched with members of the judiciary and participated in informal chats. The day concluded with the Bites & Beverages from the Bar, a relaxed happy hour featuring signature drinks and appetizers.
Co-chaired this year by Judge Tanya Garrison, Judge Beau Miller, Andrea Chan, Todd Frankfort, and myself, the 2025 conference embodied the committee’s mission: to provide an informal yet impactful setting where lawyers and judges can connect, exchange insights, and ultimately improve the practice of law in Harris County.
“Today is about remembering that we are all human, that we all want a better justice system, and that if we work together, we just might find the solutions to get there,” said Judge Miller during the program’s opening remarks, joined by Judge Garrison. Their message resonated deeply as attendees prepared for a lineup of impressive panels and discussions.
The conference offered attendees six hours of MCLE credit—including 1.75 hours of ethics—and specialized credits in multiple legal disciplines, such as Civil Appellate, Civil Trial, Probate, and Personal Injury Trial Law. Plenary sessions and breakout tracks addressed timely legal topics ranging from ap-
The Bench Bar Conference Committee extends heartfelt thanks to the numerous sponsors—including AZA Law, Sorrels Law, Baker Botts L.L.P., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, and Rapp & Krock, PC—as well as legal support services and individual contributors— whose support made the day possible. (A full list of our conference’s sponsors is available at hba.org/bbc.)
In my closing remarks, I thanked the committee members and key HBA staff, including Associate Executive Director Ashley Steininger and Education Coordinator Alli Hessel. I also encouraged everyone in attendance to get involved with the HBA and sign up for an HBA committee. (A full list of HBA committees and a description of their work can be found at hba.org/committees).
With its blend of substance and spirit, the 2025 Bench Bar Conference succeeded in its goal: reinforcing the ties between bench and bar, sparking critical conversations, and reaffirming the shared commitment to a justice system that works better for all
Donna Thomisee is a shareholder with Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard and the partner in charge of the Houston office. Her 37-year career offers expertise in defending personal injury and commercial litigation, as well analyzing and litigating all types of insurance coverage disputes. She is also a credentialed mediator and arbitrator.
By JAMES PASSAMANO
Members of the HBA Social Security Section practice in a vitally important area of law. More than 90 years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt first proposed a program of Social Security in his June 8, 1934 message to Congress. The resulting Social Security Act of 1935 created the familiar Social Security retirement benefit program and the federal unemployment insurance program. Both programs continue to operate as an important source of social and economic security to millions of American families today. Since 1935, Social Security has expanded to provide survivor benefits, disability benefits, and supplemental income for indigent and disabled Americans.
the quality of representation in Social Security hearings and the administration of Social Security claims. The section plans to continue its ongoing cooperative CLE programs with the local and regional Social Security offices, administrative law judges, and the Office of Hearing Operations.
Members of the HBA Social Security Section now find their area of practice at the center of national attention. The new administration in Washington, D.C. has undertaken an effort to reduce the size and operating costs of Social Security Administration. It has announced the closure of dozens of Social Security offices around the country. This proposal comes at a time when the agency is already experiencing a historic backlog of cases and staffing shortages. The Social Security Administration, one of the largest departments in the federal government, has traditionally and intentionally been decentralized so that the services it provides are closer to the citizens it serves. The Social Security Administration operates about 1,200 field offices across the country so that beneficiaries can obtain and maintain their benefits from local offices staffed by members of their community without having to go through the distant central headquarters in Baltimore.
The role of lawyers in this practice area has become more important than ever at a time when the agency’s offices often do not have the resources or staff to promptly solve beneficiaries’ problems, especially when the beneficiaries are in dire situations with devastating financial circumstances looming.
One of the HBA Social Security Section’s goals is to improve
The HBA Social Security Section also holds regular meetings. While section membership is traditionally small in number, its members have rich experience. The monthly meetings are an important aspect of professional development and collegiality for the Social Security bar. This year, the section has held three CLE programs at its monthly meetings (both online and in-person) and will continue to be the focal point for the Social Security bar in the Houston Bar Association.
The section will also continue its ongoing effort to increase section membership. We hope to attract newly-licensed attorneys to this challenging practice, as well as attract attorneys from other areas of practice. HBA Social Security Section members work in a highly focused administrative litigation practice, which involves marshaling medical evidence and presenting evidence before administrative law judges, in appeals to the administration’s Office of Hearing Appeals, in United States District Court and in the Circuit Courts of Appeal. Consequently, Social Security law overlaps with many other areas of practice, such as employee benefits, personal injury, settlements, guardianships, and estate planning. We invite other HBA members to join our section or at least join us at the next meeting.
James Passamano is the 2024-2025 chair the HBA Social Security Section. He has been a partner at Sufian & Passamano, L.L.P. since 1997. He is a former senior trial attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a former judicial clerk for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He received law degrees from the University of Cambridge in England and from South Texas College of Law Houston.
By PHILLIP L. SAMPSON JR. and JULIA MAEVE KOWALSKY
One of the goals of the new Texas Business Court is to create a body of case law to help guide lawyers and parties who are considering using the court. Business Court judges are even required to issue written opinions: (i) if requested on a dispositive ruling or (ii) “on an issue important to the jurisprudence of the state, regardless of request.”1 With nearly one year under its belt, the prevailing trend for the court’s written opinions has been a jurisdictional one–namely, how can a party get its case to the Business Court and keep it there? As of April 30, 2025, there were 23 written opinions out of the court, and each involves a jurisdictional question to some extent.
Most of the opinions involve the jurisdictional requirements a party must meet for its case to be adjudicated by the court, and those opinions largely focus on Section 8 of enrolled House Bill 19 (“H.B. 19”). Section 8 is the Business Court’s enabling legislation, and it provides that “[t] he changes in law made by this Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.”2 By issuing numerous opinions focusing on interpretations of Section 8’s language, the court is paving a solid road of jurisdictional jurisprudence, particularly in the removal context.
Opinions from the Business Court have uniformly held that if a suit was “commenced,” meaning filed, before September 1, 2024–the commencement period stated in Section 83 –the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. At least 10 lawsuits have involved claims that were filed prior to September 1, 2024 and where a party later sought removal to the Business Court.4 A party may only remove an action to the Business Court if the action is within the court’s jurisdiction.5 Consequently, in those 10 cases, the commencement date acted as a barrier to
entry, and the courts remanded the cases back to their originating lower courts since they were “commenced,” or filed, prior to September 1, 2024.6
Chapter 25A of the Government Code is the formal statute governing the Business Court, and Chapter 25A as codified does not reference Section 8 of House Bill 19. Nevertheless, opinions from the Court have consistently held that Section 8’s enabling legislation—which expressly mentions this law (Chapter 25A) and its removal procedures—only apply to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024.7 Litigants have argued that Section 8 should not necessarily preclude cases filed prior to September 1, 2024, since it does not include exclusionary language like the term “only.”8 But the court has held that exclusionary language is not necessary on the basis that it would have been superfluous for the legislature to have included such language.9 Court opinions regarding removal jurisdiction also make clear that an “action” for removal purposes means a lawsuit, not individual claims within a lawsuit.10
In at least two cases, parties have attempted to bypass the September 1, 2024 commencement date issue by consenting to jurisdiction through a Rule 11 agreement. The parties argued the Rule 11 agreement was a “subsequent agreement” pursuant to Section 25A.004(d) of the Texas Government Code.11 Section 25A.004(d) provides that the Business Court has concurrent jurisdiction with district courts in actions that “arise[] out of a contract or commercial transaction in which the parties to the contract or transaction agreed in the contract or in a subsequent agreement that the Business Court has jurisdiction of the action.”12 The Lone Star court ordered a remand subject to a request for a permissive interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(d).13 The court allowed the interlocutory appeal, noting that it needed resolution of a “seminal” issue that was a controlling question of law: whether a civil action commenced before September 1, 2024 may be removed to the Business Court where the parties enter into a subsequent agreement expressly consenting to the jurisdiction of the Business Court.14 The Fifteenth Court of Appeals has yet to answer Lone Star ’s removal question, leaving open the possibility that a subsequent agreement could potentially give rise to Business Court
subject-matter jurisdiction.
It also appears that Lone Star ’s removalrelated interlocutory appeal may be the exception rather than the rule. The Fifteenth Court of Appeals recently held that an interlocutory appeal was not available for a party whose case was remanded from the Business Court back to district court.15 In related mandamus proceedings, the court held that “appellate review of every order granting or denying remand would add unproductively to the expense and delay of civil litigation.”16 But the court noted that mandamus review may be granted in “exceptional cases” to allow the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to “‘give needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive,’ without unduly interfering on ‘issues that are unimportant both to the ultimate disposition of the case at hand and to the uniform development of the law.’”17
As of May 2, 2025, there were 118 cases pending in the Business Court’s five divisions. In light of the number of cases and the volume of jurisdictional opinions from the court, it is likely that litigants will continue to make strategic jurisdictional plays, particularly in situations involving removal and for actions that were filed before September 1, 2024. Additional jurisdiction-related opinions are expected from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals and, potentially, the Texas Supreme Court. Attorneys should stay abreast of developing Business Court jurisprudence in order to advise their clients of the potential benefits and risks to pushing jurisdictional envelopes in the Texas Business Court.
Phillip L. Sampson Jr. is a partner at Bracewell LLP who has spent over 30 years aggressively advocating for his clients’ interests in complex business and tort disputes. Phillip represents clients in a diverse range of complex business litigation and arbitration matters involving the energy, construction, insurance, manufacturing, steel, oil field services, chemical, petrochemical, software, financial services, consumer products, and real estate sectors.
Julia Maeve Kowalsky is an associate at Bracewell LLP and focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation and represents individuals and corporations across various industries in state and federal courts. Her experience includes representing large healthcare corporations
in payor-provider disputes, providing counsel for complex commercial disputes, providing counsel related to state and federal public information requests, and government and internal investigations.
1. TEX. R. CIV. P. 360
2. See Act of May 25, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 380, § 8, 2023 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 919, 919-929
3. See Act of May 25, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 380, §§ 1-9, 2023 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 919, 919-929.
4. See, e.g., Energy Transfer LP, et al. v. Culberson Midstream LLC, et al., 705 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2024); Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc., 705 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2024); Tema Oil and Gas Co. v. ETC Field Services, LLC, 705 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2024); Jorrie v. Charles, et al., 704 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2024); Winans v. Berry, 705 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2024); XTO Energy, Inc. v. Houston Pipe Line Co., LP, 705 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2024); Seter v. Westdale Asset Management, Ltd., No. 24-BC01A-0006, 2024 WL 5337346, at *1 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Dec. 16, 2024); Lone Star NGL Product Servs. v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures, LLC, 705 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2024); Bestway Oilfield, Inc. v. Cox, No. 23-BC11A-0016, 2025 WL 251338, at *1 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Jan. 17, 2025); Osmose Utilities Servs., Inc. v. Navarro County Elec. Coop., 707 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2025).
5. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 25.006(d).
6. As discussed infra, the Lone Star court stayed its remand order contained in its opinion subject to the resolution of an interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(e). 705 S.W.3d at 256.
7. Winans, 2024 WL 5337410, at *2; Energy Transfer LP, 705 S.W.3d at 220.
8. Winans, 2024 WL2024 WL 5337410, at *2.
9. Id.
10. Osmose Utilities Servs., Inc., 707 S.W.3d at 123 (plaintiff’s attempt to remove only part of underlying case was improper, as court’s governing law and procedural rules only authorize removal of “actions.”). The relevant date to calculate whether removal is proper is the date on which suit was filed in the district court, not the date on which parties may have filed discrete claims sought to be removed to the business court. Id.
11. Lone Star NGL, 705 S.W.3d at 247 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2024); Bestway Oilfield, Inc., 2025 WL 251338, at * 2-3.
12. Lone Star NGL, 705 S.W. 3d at 248 (emphasis added).
13. Id. at 255.
14. Id.
15.ETC Field Services, LLC v. Tema Oil and Gas Co., No. 15-24-00124-CV, 2025 WL 582317, at *1 (Tex. App. [15th Dist.] Feb. 21, 2025) (“No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal of a remand order from the business court.”). The Court similarly held in Synergy Glob. Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Glob. Sols., Inc., No. 1524-00127-CV, 2025 WL 582314, at *1 (Tex. App. [15th Dist.] Feb. 21, 2025) that an interlocutory appeal in this context was not permitted, relying on its opinion in In re ETC Field Services, LLC
16. In re ETC Field Services, LLC, 707 S.W.3d 924, 925 (Tex. App. [15th Dist.] 2025). The Court, however, left open whether mandamus review would be available for similarly situated lawsuits. As the court found no abuse of discretion in remanding the current case back to district court, mandamus review was not warranted. Id. at 929-30 (denying ETC’s petition for mandamus).
17. Id. at 929.
By ELIZABETH L. SILVER
Published by Riverhead Books
Reviewed by KATHERINE KUNZ
The Majority is a work of realistic fiction loosely based on the life of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but to end the description there would be to discredit Elizabeth L. Silver’s engaging, thoughtful, character-driven work building on, but distinct from, the familiar beats of RBG’s life. The similarities are evident from the outset: Sylvia Olin Bernstein is a pioneering Jewish female Supreme Court associate justice known cheekily by her initials (here, the “Contemptuous SOB”).
ministration treats Sylvia’s absence from her exams as if she were malingering and not recovering from a medically-stressful childbirth.
But Sylvia is a statuesque blonde, not a diminutive brunette, who hates opera and eschews jabots and collars for her judicial robes. Further, Sylvia’s life is singularly shaped by the arrival of her father’s cousin, Mariana, in 1949. Mariana is a concentration camp survivor whose experiences drive her to better understand the American justice system— she even drags a school-aged Sylvia along to view New York City’s courtrooms and hear jury verdicts. Throughout her formative years, Sylvia sees the inequalities in what men and women are permitted to do, both in Judaism and in secular life, and burns with the injustice of that distinction.
Sylvia arrives at Harvard Law School and in her first class meets Joseph Bernstein, a second-year student and research assistant. Sylvia and Joe eventually marry, but not before Sylvia becomes pregnant between her first and second years of law school. Sylvia faces expulsion for not finishing her second year of law school because she failed to complete her exams—her daughter was born three weeks early and they were both in the hospital at the time the exams were proctored. The school administration balks at simply letting Sylvia take her exams later, citing students who suffered through other injuries and illnesses to take their exams and the unfairness of treating her differently. Sylvia protests that her circumstances are different, but is told that she “had two responsibilities, and it was clear that [she] couldn’t do both,” notwithstanding the impossibility of doing both. The Majority opens with the famed Sarah Grimké quote, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” Nowhere in the book does this sentiment ring stronger than the imperious way the law school ad-
Sylvia’s law school experience presages her representation of Alma Alvarez, who was fired from her teaching job for becoming pregnant and placed on bed rest. Indeed, The Majority is not merely a reference to the prevailing set of justices on an opinion, but also a nod to the fact that there are more women than men in the United States. As Sylvia tells Alma, “[N]ow women are the majority, and yet we hold almost no power at all.” Sylvia plans to advocate before the Supreme Court for short-term disability protection for pregnant women to keep their jobs while on maternity leave but internally grapples with what the word “disability” represents when used to describe motherhood and the implications of the word’s negative connotations.
The Majority also examines motherhood from the maternal perspective. Sylvia has a fractious relationship with her daughter, Aviva, who has a hard time reconciling her mother’s absence and career demands with Aviva’s need for her mother to be physically present for her and their family. The burden of balancing these dual obligations rings true for many working mothers, as does Sylvia’s weighing of the potential negative impact of having additional pregnancies and children on her nascent legal career.
Many of the conversations between the characters in this novel read like a Socratic method inquiry, but they arise organically and provide thoughtful philosophical anchors for the plot. Silver herself is an attorney, as well as a novelist, who at one point worked as judicial clerk for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Her deep understanding of legal concepts both practical and philosophical is evident throughout this book.
In many ways, The Majority is a love letter to the highest and best purposes our legal system and judiciary can aspire to, showing how over time an opposing voice—a dissent—that favors a truer justice may ultimately evolve into the majority. The arc of the moral universe is long indeed, and Sylvia likewise concludes that justice moves in fits and starts: “Once you hit a goal, the goalpost moves farther away, sometimes based on new progress, and sometimes with unexpected regress.”
Katherine Kunz is a partner at Hicks Thomas LLP, focusing on commercial civil litigation and energy disputes.
The Houston Bar Association 100 Club is a special category of membership that indicates a commitment to the advancement of the legal profession and the betterment of the community. The following law firms, government agencies, law schools and corporate legal departments with five or more attorneys have become members of the 100 Club by enrolling 100 percent of their attorneys as members of the HBA.
Firms of 5-24 Attorneys
Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner
Adair Myers Stevenson Yagi PLLC
Ajamie LLP
Alvarez Stauffer Bremer PLLC
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
Buck Keenan LLP
Christian Levine Law Group, LLC
Coats | Rose
Crady, Jewett, McCulley & Houren, LLP
De Lange Hudspeth McConnell & Tibbets LLP
Dentons US LLP
Dobrowski Stafford LLP
Doyle Restrepo Harvin & Robbins LLP
Ewing & Jones, PLLC
Fisher & Phillips LLP
Fizer Beck Webster Bentley & Scroggins
Fogler, Brar, O’Neil & Gray LLP
Frank, Elmore, Lievens, Slaughter & Turet, L.L.P.
Funderburk Funderburk Courtois, LLP
Germer PLLC
Gordon Rees Scully & Mansukhani, LLP
Hagans
Henke, Williams & Boll, LLP
Hirsch & Westheimer, P.C.
Holm | Bambace LLP
Horne Rota Moos LLP
Hughes, Watters & Askanase, L.L.P.
Hunt Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
Husch Blackwell LLP
Jackson Lewis P.C.
Jenkins & Kamin, LLP
Johnson DeLuca Kurisky & Gould, P.C.
Jordan, Lynch & Cancienne
Kean Miller
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Law Feehan Adams LLP
Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP
Liskow
McGinnis Lochridge
McGuireWoods LLP
McKool Smith
MehaffyWeber PC
Morris Lendais Hollrah & Snowden
Murrah & Killough, PLLC
Nathan Sommers Gibson Dillon
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Paranjpe Mahadass Ruemke LLP
Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Phelps Dunbar LLP
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Ramey, Chandler, Quinn & Zito, P.C.
Rapp & Krock PC
Reynolds Frizzell LLP
Roach & Newton, L.L.P.
Ross Banks May Cron & Cavin PC
Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, L.L.P.
Rusty Hardin & Associates, LLP
Schirrmeister Diaz-Arrastia Brem LLP
Schwartz, Page & Harding, L.L.P.
Scott, Clawater & Houston, L.L.P.
Shannon Martin Finkelstein Alvarado & Dunne, P.C.
Shearman & Sterling
Shellist | Lazarz | Slobin LLP
Shipley Snell Montgomery LLP
Smith Murdaugh Little & Bonham LLP
Sorrels Law
Spencer Fane
Sponsel Miller Greenberg PLLC
Stuart PC
Taunton Snyder & Parish
Thompson & Horton LLP
Tindall England PC
Tracey & Fox Law Firm
Ware, Jackson, Lee, O’Neill, Smith & Barrow, LLP
West Mermis
Weycer, Kaplan, Pulaski & Zuber, PC
Williams Hart & Boundas, LLP
Wright Abshire, Attorneys, PC
Wright Close & Barger, LLP
Ytterberg Deery Knull LLP
Zukowski, Bresenhan & Piazza L.L.P.
Firms of 25-49 Attorneys
Adams and Reese LLP
Andrews Myers, P.C.
Beck Redden LLP
BoyarMiller
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Bush & Ramirez, PLLC
Cokinos | Young
Gibbs & Bruns LLP
Hogan Lovells US LLP
Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC
Littler Mendelson P.C.
Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom LLP
McDowell & Hetherington LLP
Wilson Cribbs & Goren PC
Yetter Coleman LLP
Firms of 50-99 Attorneys
AZA Law
BakerHostetler LLP
Brown Sims, P.C.
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Haynes and Boone, LLP
Jackson Walker LLP
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
Winstead PC
Firms of 100+ Attorneys
Baker Botts L.L.P.
Bracewell LLP
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright
Porter Hedges LLP
Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
Vinson & Elkins LLP
Corporate Legal Departments
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
EOG Resources, Inc.
MAXXAM, Inc.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.
Quantlab Financial, LLC
Rice University
S & B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd.
Law School Faculty
South Texas College of Law Houston
Thurgood Marshall School of Law
University of Houston Law Center
Government Agencies
Harris County Attorney’s Office
Harris County District Attorney’s Office
Harris County Domestic Relations Office
Lone Star Legal Aid
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas
Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas
1st Court of Appeals
14th Court of Appeals
Private attorney-only office space conveniently located inside Houston’s 610 Loop at San Felipe. Staffed with a receptionist/office manager, with access to amenities, including high-speed internet, telephones, kitchen, two conference rooms, and covered parking. Several offices are available with window views.
Call Jerry at 713-237-0222.
Located in the heart of Houston Heights at 104 W. 12th Street, this restored 1916 building offers a distinctive office suite — a perfect fit for attorneys seeking a professional space with style and character. High ceilings, large windows, abundant natural light, and curated furnishings create a calm,
elevated environment ideal for client meetings and focused work. The space blends original architectural details with a modern industrial vibe that stands apart from traditional office settings. A beautiful, peaceful waiting area welcomes clients, with a kitchenette inside the suite and restrooms conveniently located just outside. Free parking is available on the property and nearby streets. Flexible lease options — full-time, evenings, or weekends — just blocks from the historic 19th Street district and some of the Heights’ best dining and shops. For more information or to schedule a tour: Dr. Kelli Wright, 713-249-5838, kelli@drkelliwright.com.
HOUSTON OFFICE SPACE–BERING AND WOODWAY
Access to copier/fax/phone system (you can add your own line). Possible client referrals – the two existing tenants are experienced 30+ year lawyers. On-site management and security guard. Access to amenities, including covered outside parking, kitchen, conference room, file cabinet space, and internet access.
$850/month per office. Call Lisa DeWild at 832-581-2066.
ATTORNEYS FIRST INSURANCE
Variety of Cyber Insurance Policies for Lawyers and Title Agents
E&O | Cyber | Crime
Sam Cohen 866-977-6720
sam@attorneysfirst.com
Four-story building located on Bering Drive, just south of Woodway. Two 12’x15’ fully furnished window offices are available. We proudly support the 2025 HBA Annual Dinner and congratulate our Partner David Harrell, outgoing president of the HBA.
