Source reporting: Dallas Express
The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to hear a public-records dispute over Highland Park Independent School District’s refusal to release an accounting firm’s report about financial operations at the Seay Tennis Center, according to the Dallas Express. The court granted review on September 4 but has not decided whether the report must be disclosed.
Oral arguments in Texas Public Policy Foundation v. Highland Park Independent School District are scheduled for October 8 at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law in Dallas. Each side is expected to receive 20 minutes, the Dallas Express reported.
The dispute began with a 2019 investigation. HPISD retained outside counsel to examine allegations involving employees’ handling of the tennis center’s finances and to advise the district. The law firm then hired accounting and consulting firm Whitley-Penn to assist. According to the Fifth Court of Appeals’ account, Whitley-Penn delivered its report to the attorney, who used it to provide legal advice. The report was not provided to district personnel during that process or released publicly.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation requested the document under the Texas Public Information Act in August 2022. HPISD sought an opinion from the Texas Attorney General’s Office, which concluded that attorney-client privilege covered the report. A Dallas County trial court reviewed the document privately and sided with the district, and the Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed.
TPPF argues that the state’s high court should decide whether a governmental body can shield a completed factual investigation by routing it through an attorney. The organization also contends that HPISD waived any privilege when an administrator publicly denied that the center’s funds had been mishandled. The appeals court concluded that the statement did not reveal the report’s substance or the attorney’s advice.
HPISD maintains that the accounting firm acted as counsel’s representative and that the report was confidential work used to deliver legal services. Those are the parties’ legal positions; the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case does not signal which side will prevail.
The case has statewide public-integrity importance because its outcome could affect how Texas school districts and other government entities respond to requests for investigative records. A broad privilege rule could allow more factual reviews to remain confidential when commissioned through counsel, while a narrower rule could expose sensitive material prepared for legal advice. The court’s eventual opinion should clarify that boundary for public agencies, requesters and taxpayers.