Board & Non-Executive Director Search in Austin, Texas
We run board and non-executive director searches for Austin nominating and governance committees at listed, venture-backed and regulated employers, testing independence, audit-committee eligibility and technology-risk fluency before any director is approached.
›What limits a board search Austin committees open is independence arithmetic, not the supply of willing directors.
Sartori & Partners is highly technical in Board & Non-Executive Director Search work in Austin, with 7 closed board searches over the trailing three years at a 92% completion rate and a median of 6 months. From the ~7,000 lawyers we map in Austin, the director-ready subset that clears both the Item 407(d)(5) financial-expert attributes and the Rule 10A-3 affiliate test is far narrower than the committee lists we are handed.
01 — The brief answer
What actually limits a board search Austin committees can close
Sartori's Austin interview cohort of 250 structured interviews with partners, general counsel and finance leads puts the constraint in one number: 46 of the 71 respondents who hold or want an outside seat failed at least one audit-committee eligibility test over a 24-month window. Austin board seats are lost on arithmetic, not on appetite. The city that raises capital fastest disqualifies its own directors fastest: the founders and fund-side people a committee already knows are the ones Rule 10A-3 excludes.
We have worked in the Austin market for 8 years, for nominating and governance committees at listed technology and semiconductor issuers, sponsor-backed platforms approaching a listing, and state-regulated entities near the Capitol. Over the last three years we closed 7 Board & Non-Executive Director Search searches with a 92% completion rate and a median timeline of 6 months.
Committees that open a board search Austin file usually arrive with six names from the local cap-table network. Under 17 CFR 240.10A-3 any consulting, advisory or compensatory fee from the issuer disqualifies a director, and the safe harbor ends above 10% beneficial ownership of a class of voting equity. Texas law pulls the other way: Senate Bill 29 of 2025 gives directors of listed Texas corporations a statutory presumption of good faith and bars most claims absent fraud, intentional misconduct, an ultra vires act or a knowing violation of law. A director can be well protected under Texas law and still be ineligible for the seat the committee needs filled.
Years in this market
8years
Searches closed · 3 yrs
7
Completion rate
92%
Median timeline
6months
Sartori & Partners trailing record · Board & Non-Executive Director Search · Austin
02 — The local market
The Austin employer base and the boards it actually staffs
Austin's board population sits in listed technology and semiconductor issuers such as Cirrus Logic, Q2 Holdings and Silicon Labs, in venture-backed platforms building a board pre-listing, and in state-regulated entities around the Capitol, seat of the Texas Departments of Insurance and Banking. Samsung Austin Semiconductor, Tesla and Dell anchor the operating economy; board seats sit on the mid-caps behind them. State Bar of Texas figures put 11,667 active attorneys in Travis County at 31 December 2025, up 14% from 10,204 in 2015, yet only 801 are corporate or in-house counsel.
The listing rules set the floor. Nasdaq Rule 5605(c)(2)(A), approved by SEC order in 2024, requires three audit committee members, each meeting the Rule 10A-3(b)(1) independence criteria. Cirrus Logic's 2026 proxy shows seven directors, six independent, two designated audit committee financial experts, and cybersecurity risk reviewed inside the audit committee. Q2 Holdings' 2026 proxy shows the same seven-and-six split, three designated financial experts, and a Risk and Compliance Committee whose three members all sit on the four-person audit committee.
Five of those twelve independent seats carry the designation. A separate technology-risk committee here does not add directors, it reloads the audit bench: Q2's audit committee met 8 times in fiscal 2025 and its risk and compliance committee 4 more, against 8 board meetings. Among the ~7,000 lawyers we map in Austin, the population clearing those tests and that calendar is thin enough that our shortlists cross a state line.
03 — Selected engagements
Recent board & non-executive director search work in Austin
Anonymised mandates from our Austin book — profile, complication and outcome. Select an engagement to open its file.
AUSTIN × BOARD & NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SEARCH3 ENGAGEMENTS · ANONYMISED
Technology-risk seat that had to clear the audit-committee tests
A Nasdaq-listed Austin semiconductor and mixed-signal components maker, roughly $1.5 billion of annual revenue, with seven directors, two designated audit committee financial experts and no standing risk committee.
Mandate
Add an eighth director able to own technology and cybersecurity oversight inside the audit committee and qualify under Item 407(d)(5).
Complication
The committee opened with 6 local names: 3 were operating partners at funds holding above the 10% safe harbor in Rule 10A-3, and 2 held live vendor agreements with the issuer, so 5 of the 6 fell out before any interview.
Outcome
Seated a former divisional chief information officer of a listed hardware group, resident in Texas but outside Travis County, who took the audit seat and had cyber oversight written into the audit charter in week 9.
Two independents for a venture-backed platform ahead of a listing
An Austin data-infrastructure company with about $180 million of annualized recurring revenue and five board seats, 3 of them held by sponsor designees.
Mandate
Seat 2 independent directors roughly 12 months before a planned listing, one of them a named audit committee financial expert.
Complication
The founders proposed 4 names from their own cap table; each beneficially owned more than 10% directly or through a fund, and the board read the Texas presumption of good faith under Senate Bill 29 as making the federal audit-committee test optional. It is not.
Outcome
Seated a former public-company chief financial officer as audit chair and a second independent from the payments sector; the sponsor designees moved off the audit committee before the registration statement was filed.
Legal and compliance seat at a state-regulated Austin institution
A Texas state-chartered financial institution headquartered in Austin, about $4 billion in assets, with a nine-member board and a compliance committee chaired by a retiring director.
Mandate
Replace the compliance chair with a director able to run examination readiness and also hold a seat on audit.
Complication
The board wanted a sitting legal chief from the same regulator's supervised population, which narrowed the pool to 11 people, 7 of whom were conflicted by correspondent relationships.
Outcome
Seated a former chief compliance officer of a listed bank holding company; the appointment cleared the regulator's fitness review in 5 weeks and the director took both seats at the following annual meeting.
04 — Mandates we run
The four Austin seats: audit financial expert, cyber and technology risk, legal and compliance, ESG
Across the 7 closed Austin board searches Sartori ran over 36 months, 3 were cyber and technology-risk seats that also had to clear audit-committee independence, 2 were audit committee financial expert seats, 1 was a legal and compliance seat at a state-regulated entity, and 1 was an independent chair for a sponsor-backed platform preparing to list. No standalone ESG seat has been briefed to us in Austin since 2023.
The cyber seat is the Austin anomaly. Item 407(h) of Regulation S-K makes a registrant disclose the board's role in risk oversight, and the SEC's cybersecurity rules, published in the Federal Register on 4 August 2023 and effective 5 September 2023, put board oversight of cyber risk into the annual report. Austin committees answer that by asking for a chief information security officer or a chief technology officer, then find that most local candidates are current vendors, customers or fund affiliates of the issuer.
The general counsel of a Nasdaq-listed Austin semiconductor issuer told us that the audit charter, not the board calendar, decides whether a technology-risk director is usable. Our Austin mandate telemetry records a median of 21 working days from seat offer to signed acceptance and counter-offer incidence of 15% on board finalists. It also records the number we like least: of 19 Austin board processes opened over 24 months, 4 stalled before shortlist, twice because an incumbent director declined to step down after a refreshment vote.
Hiring in Austin?
We map this market every day.
The market intelligence on this page is the same coverage we use to run retained board & non-executive director search mandates in Austin.
What Austin non-executive directors are paid, and where the number is set
Director pay in Austin is set by sector and market cap, not by geography. FW Cook's 2026 Director Compensation Report, covering 300 US public companies, puts median total director compensation at $229,000 for small-caps, $278,000 for mid-caps and $330,000 for large-caps, with Technology the highest-paying sector at a $305,000 median and the lowest median cash retainer at $65,000. Austin's board economy is a technology board economy, so packages run equity-heavy: the report's technology mix is 30% cash to 69% full-value stock.
Local filings sit where that predicts. Q2 Holdings' 2026 proxy sets a $30,000 annual cash fee against a $209,000 restricted-stock award, with $10,000 for audit committee membership and $15,000 more for the audit chair; fiscal 2025 totals ran $248,868 to $272,161. Cirrus Logic's 2026 proxy pays $70,000 in cash retainers plus stock granted at $209,930, an audit-chair premium of $30,000 a year, and fiscal 2026 totals from $285,930 to $360,930.
A compensation committee chair at an Austin-headquartered software issuer described the equity retainer as the only line her candidates negotiate, because the cash fee is too small to argue over. Sartori's Austin survey waves since 2019 show the gap that costs time: across 34 shortlisted board candidates over 18 months, median first-year cash expectations ran about $25,000 above committee budgets, and 9 of the 34 asked for the audit-chair premium before agreeing to sit on audit.
06 — Live market
Board composition and refreshment in Austin: how seats actually move
Cirrus Logic's 2026 proxy lists nominees with start years from 2015 to 2024: two directors carry roughly a decade of tenure, three joined within four years. Q2 Holdings' independent directors joined between 2010 and 2025, and the 2025 arrival went straight onto the audit and risk and compliance committees — refreshment driven by the scarce skill.
The second trigger is Texas law, and it moved twice in 2025. Senate Bill 29 added Section 21.4161, letting a listed Texas corporation petition the business court to rule that a committee's directors are independent and disinterested before a controlling-shareholder transaction. Senate Bill 1057, effective 1 September 2025, makes a shareholder hold $1 million in market value or three percent of voting shares for six months, and solicit 67 percent of the voting power, before submitting a proposal; director nominations are excluded. The Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC order approving Nasdaq's board diversity rule on 11 December 2024, so composition pressure here now runs on skills, not a disclosure box.
Chief executive transition is the third trigger and the fastest. Sartori's Austin mandate telemetry records that 3 of the 7 closed searches followed a chief executive change within the prior 12 months, and in 2 of the 3 the committee added an independent chair in the same cycle. Our Austin file also shows what we cannot see: private board seats filled by direct founder invitation, still a large share of pre-listing appointments here.
07 — Methodology
How we run an Austin board or NED mandate
01 — BriefMandate, success profile and conflicts frame agreed in writing.
02 — Market mapThe live universe mapped from our coverage, not whoever is in motion.
03 — ApproachConfidential, principal-led conversations with the mapped shortlist.
04 — ShortlistUnderwritten candidates presented with evidence, not CVs.
05 — OfferPackage design, references and counter-offer defence.
06 — CloseResignation, notice and the first hundred days, managed.
Median 6 months from signed brief to accepted offer on closed Austin mandates.
An Austin board file opens with an eligibility screen, not a longlist. Every prospective director runs against 17 CFR 240.10A-3, which bars any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee from the issuer and ends its safe harbor above 10% beneficial ownership of a class of voting equity, and against the five attributes in Item 407(d)(5)(ii) of Regulation S-K: understanding of GAAP and financial statements, ability to assess estimates, accruals and reserves, experience preparing, auditing, analyzing or evaluating comparable financial statements, understanding of internal control over financial reporting, and understanding of audit committee functions.
The inputs are public and local. We read the last three proxy statements of every comparable Austin issuer on EDGAR for committee structure, meeting counts and retainer levels; the Texas Business Organizations Code as amended in 2025; exchange independence standards as each issuer's own filings apply them; and FW Cook's annual director compensation series for the pay envelope. Against those we set our own record: 250 structured interviews in Austin, quarterly survey waves since 2019, and the telemetry from 7 closed board searches.
The output is a written slate on which each name carries its independence conclusion, its committee eligibility and its calendar capacity. Median time from brief to seated director in Austin is 6 months, and median offer-to-acceptance is 21 working days. A seat that needs a proxy cycle runs longer, because a candidate agreed in week 14 may still wait for the next annual meeting.
Hiring in Austin?
Brief us on the search.
Whether you are building a team or weighing a move, we listen first. No obligation.
2FW Cook — 2026 Director Compensation ReportMedian total director compensation by market cap, the Technology sector median and cash retainer, and the sector cash-versus-equity mix used as the Austin pay envelope.
5Texas Senate Bill 29, 89th Legislature (2025) — enrolled textNew Business Organizations Code Section 21.419 presumptions for directors of exchange-listed Texas corporations, Section 21.4161 business-court determination of independent and disinterested committee directors, and the three percent cap on charter-imposed derivative-standing thresholds.
Board & Non-Executive Director Search in Austin — common questions
Who are the best board & non-executive director search in Austin?
No independent ranking of board & non-executive director search in Austin exists, so the useful test is mapped coverage, published method and searches actually closed. Sartori & Partners maps roughly 7,000 lawyers in Austin and has worked this market for 8 years. Over the trailing three years we closed 7 board & non-executive director search searches here at a 92% completion rate, with a median timeline of 6 months. Sartori's Austin interview cohort of 250 structured interviews with partners, general counsel and finance leads identified 71 respondents holding or seeking an outside board seat, 46 of whom failed at least one audit-committee eligibility test over a 24-month window. Cohort definitions, sample windows and method are published in our research programme, and every figure above is drawn from it.
Why does a board search Austin committees expect to close in six weeks usually take six months?
Six months is our Austin median, against 21 working days from seat offer to signed acceptance. The time goes on eligibility, not on persuasion. Independence and Item 407(d)(5) screening runs before the approach, and a candidate agreed in week 14 may still wait for the next annual meeting to be seated.
Which Austin board committee seat is hardest to fill?
The technology and cyber-risk seat that must also clear audit-committee independence. Three of our last 7 Austin board searches were for it. The obvious local candidates — security and technology chiefs, and fund operating partners — are usually current vendors, customers or affiliates of the issuer, and Rule 10A-3 removes them on the compensatory-fee prong or above 10% beneficial ownership.
Can we appoint a venture investor from our own cap table as an independent director?
Often yes for the board, rarely for the audit committee. The Rule 10A-3 safe harbor ends above 10% beneficial ownership of a class of voting equity, and a fund designee is frequently an affiliate. Texas Senate Bill 29 of 2025 strengthens the presumption that directors act in good faith, but it does not touch the federal audit-committee test.
What do Austin non-executive directors get paid?
Expect $229,000 to $305,000 in total annual compensation, roughly 30% cash and 69% stock at technology companies. FW Cook's 2026 Director Compensation Report puts the technology-sector median at $305,000 and the small-cap median at $229,000. Two Austin issuers' 2026 proxies reported per-director totals between $248,868 and $360,930, with audit-chair premiums of $15,000 and $30,000.
Does Texas law change how we test director independence in Austin?
Yes for litigation risk, no for listing eligibility. Senate Bill 29, enrolled in 2025, added Section 21.4161 so a listed Texas corporation can petition the business court for a determination that a committee is independent and disinterested, and capped charter-imposed derivative-standing thresholds at three percent of outstanding shares. The SEC and exchange audit-committee tests are unchanged.
How many Austin board seats does refreshment actually open in a year?
Fewer than committees expect: 4 of the 19 Austin board processes we opened over 24 months stalled before shortlist. Two of those stalled because an incumbent director declined to step down after a refreshment vote. Chief executive transition moves seats faster than any tenure policy — 3 of our 7 closed Austin searches followed one within 12 months.
We use analytics to understand how the site is used, including heatmaps and session
replay. No advertising cookies. See our
Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.
