The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to hear a long-running public-records fight over Highland Park Independent School District's refusal to release an accounting firm's report examining financial operations at the Seay Tennis Center. Oral arguments are set for October 8 at 9 a.m. at SMU Dedman School of Law in Dallas, with each side given 20 minutes to make its case.
The dispute traces back to 2019, when Highland Park ISD hired outside counsel to investigate allegations involving how employees handled the tennis center's financial operations, according to The Dallas Express. That outside counsel, attorney Bryan Neal, hired accounting firm Whitley Penn to provide accounting and consulting assistance, and Whitley Penn later sent its completed report directly to Neal, who used it to advise the district. The Texas Public Policy Foundation requested the report under the Texas Public Information Act in August 2022, but Highland Park ISD refused to release it.
The district instead asked the Texas Attorney General's office whether it could withhold the document, and that office concluded attorney-client privilege covered the entire report. The Texas Public Policy Foundation then asked a court to order the district to release it. A Dallas County trial court reviewed the report privately and ruled in favor of Highland Park ISD, a decision the Fifth Court of Appeals upheld in July 2025, concluding that Whitley Penn acted as Neal's representative and had sent the report confidentially to help provide legal services.
What Prompted the Original Investigation
Court filings from the Texas Public Policy Foundation state that parents had reported cash-skimming allegations dating back to 2015, and that after the Seay Tennis Center — which operates on the Highland Park High School campus and serves school teams, physical education classes, junior programs and adult players, according to the district — shifted from cash payments to mandatory credit card processing, annual facility revenues rose by more than $1 million between 2020 and 2021, according to Texas Public Policy Foundation filings. The tennis center itself was built using funds from a voter-approved $361.4 million Highland Park ISD bond package passed in November 2015, per People Newspapers.
The financial stakes carry added local weight because of how Texas school finance rules work. Under those rules, Highland Park ISD keeps 100% of net revenues generated by user fees, membership dues, and league programs at the tennis center, since facility income is exempt from the state's “Robin Hood” wealth-equalization recapture provisions that otherwise force property-wealthy districts to send excess tax dollars to the state, per the same Texas Public Policy Foundation filings.
A Disputed Email and Conflicting Court Findings
Central to the case is an email Highland Park ISD Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Michael White wrote to concerned community members in March 2021, stating there is “no mismanagement occurring, there is no malfeasance occurring, and there are no funds being misdirected or mismanaged,” according to facts drawn from the case record. During trial proceedings, White testified that his earlier description of “expert assistance” referred directly to Whitley Penn's work, according to the Texas Public Policy Foundation's petition for review.
Highland Park ISD has argued in its brief that White was describing conditions at the time rather than disclosing the report's actual findings, and the Fifth Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that White's email revealed neither the report's contents nor Neal's legal advice. The report has not been released to any third parties outside the litigation, and the law firm did not show the report to anyone at the district while providing legal advice, per court findings in the case.
Not every judge who reviewed the case agreed with the outcome. Justice Jessica Lewis agreed with the appeals court's result but wrote separately that the results of a general factual investigation conducted by a client's attorney should still be reviewed for disclosure protection, and she urged the Texas Supreme Court to take up the case. The high court granted review on September 4 without deciding the merits, meaning the underlying question of whether the report must be disclosed remains unresolved.
A Broader Fight Over a 2001 Precedent
The Texas Public Policy Foundation's petition asks the Texas Supreme Court to overturn its 2001 precedent from In re City of Georgetown, which has allowed governmental entities to claim attorney-client privilege under Texas Rule of Evidence 503 as “other law” exempting records from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act, according to Legal Newsline. Under Section 552.022(a)(1) of the Texas Public Information Act, completed reports, audits, or investigations conducted of or for a governmental body are generally classified as mandatory public information unless expressly confidential under other law, according to the Texas Attorney General's office.
The foundation has also asked the court to decide whether government officials can waive attorney-client privilege through their own public statements, and separately whether government entities may withhold completed factual investigations simply because attorneys conducted them. Texas Public Policy Foundation Senior Attorney Matthew Chiarizio has argued that allowing governmental bodies to “launder investigations through lawyers” renders the Texas Public Information Act meaningless and sets a precedent for local governments statewide, according to commentary the foundation published.
The case has also drawn attention from state lawmakers. Texas lawmakers introduced House Bill 111 during the 89th Legislative session to restrict governmental bodies from using attorney-client privilege exceptions under Section 552.107 of the Texas Government Code to withhold routine factual or investigative reports, according to Texas Policy Research. With oral arguments now scheduled for next month, the Texas Supreme Court's eventual ruling could determine not only whether the Seay Tennis Center report becomes public, but how governmental bodies statewide may use outside counsel to shield internal investigations from open-records requests going forward.
