When Transparency Is Treated as Optional: Why Jackson Walker LLP’s Withholding of Keller ISD Legal Invoices Undermines Texas Law

When Transparency Is Treated as Optional: Why Jackson Walker LLP’s Withholding of Keller ISD Legal Invoices Undermines Texas Law

By Andrew D. Sternke, J.D.

Executive Director, Texas Public Education Defense Fund

In Texas, the public’s right to know how its tax dollars are spent is not just a principle; it’s the law. The Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) and the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) were enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in government operations, particularly where public money and local decision-making intersect.

Unfortunately, recent developments involving Jackson Walker LLP and attorney Tim Davis in their representation of Keller Independent School District (Keller ISD)  Board of Trustees raise serious concerns about the erosion of these protections. Based on reports and Public Information Act requests submitted by community members, Jackson Walker LLP withholds key details of legal invoices paid for by Keller ISD taxpayers under the questionable blanket assertion of attorney-client privilege.

As the Executive Director of the Texas Public Education Defense Fund, I believe this misuse of legal privilege and public resources warrants close scrutiny. If attorneys can shield entire invoices from disclosure simply by labeling them “confidential,” the very foundation of open government is at risk.

Let’s examine the legal, ethical, and policy failures involved and respond to the justifications that will inevitably be offered.

The Law Is Clear: Legal Billing Records Are Public

The Texas Public Information Act is unambiguous. Section 552.022 (a) (3) of the Texas Government Code provides:

 “The following categories of information are public information and not excepted from required disclosure unless expressly confidential under other law:

(3) information in an account, voucher, or contract relating to the receipt or expenditure of public funds by a governmental body.”

This statutory mandate applies squarely to legal invoices, and it has been reinforced repeatedly by Texas courts and the Texas Attorney General.

In City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000), the Texas Supreme Court held that while limited redactions may be appropriate, legal billing records, particularly the general descriptions of services rendered, hours worked, and amounts billed are public.

Similarly, in Abbott v. Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 212 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006), the court emphasized that only truly privileged information, such as legal advice or litigation strategy, can be withheld. The burden is on the governmental body to justify specific redactions, not withhold entire invoices.

If Jackson Walker LLP and Keller ISD refuse to produce invoices in full or are broadly redacting routine billing entries without producing a privilege log or individualized justification, they are operating outside of what Texas law permits.

Rebutting the Justifications for Withholding

Attorneys defending this practice may point to the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship or the sensitivity of legal strategy. These are important principles but they are not absolute, especially in the context of public governance.

1. “The invoices are protected by attorney-client privilege.”

Only specific communications that contain confidential legal advice are protected. Basic billing entries like “phone call with board member,” “reviewed policy,” or “drafted memo” are not privileged unless they reveal substantive legal opinions.

The Texas Attorney General’s Open Records Decision ORD-676 (2002) affirms that descriptions of legal tasks must generally be disclosed. Courts and the Attorney General's Office consistently reject broad claims of privilege without a detailed explanation.

2. “Disclosure would compromise litigation strategy.”

This argument falls flat unless the invoice contains specific information about case strategy. Courts in Texas have ruled that factual descriptions of services are not exempt merely because they relate to ongoing litigation. This was made clear in National American Ins. Co. v. Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 925 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996).

3. “Client confidentiality prevents disclosure.”

The client in this case is a public school district board, funded by taxpayers and subject to statutory transparency requirements. The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.05 (c) (8) explicitly allow disclosure when required by law. The TPIA is such a law. Confidentiality cannot be used to override statutory mandates.

4. “The request is too broad or burdensome.”

Even if broad, the TPIA provides a mechanism to seek clarification or charge for retrieval under Section 552.222. It does not permit outright refusal to disclose responsive records. The governmental body must, by law, make a good-faith effort to separate exempt from non-exempt information and produce what it lawfully can.

Undermining the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)

Beyond the TPIA, this conduct raises additional concerns under the Texas Open Meetings Act. If the Keller ISD School Board is using legal services for internal governance actions such as silencing dissent, controlling board member behavior, or shaping district politics, those activities must be conducted transparently.

TOMA requires:

• Proper public posting of meeting agendas (§ 551.041),
• Open deliberations on public business and expenditures (§ 551.002), and
• Accurate records of closed sessions, limited only to permissible exceptions (§ 551.103).

When invoices for legal services are concealed, the public cannot evaluate whether the school board is using legal counsel for appropriate district business or for political or retaliatory purposes. This frustrates TOMA’s entire purpose.

Ethical Duties of Legal Counsel in the Public Sector

Attorneys practicing in the public sector are held to high ethical standards. The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 8.04 (a) (3) prohibit conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation. If an attorney asserts privilege over public records without proper legal basis, or enables a public client to subvert transparency laws, that attorney risks violating professional conduct rules.

Additionally, public-sector attorneys have a heightened duty to facilitate transparency, not obstruct it. Hiding taxpayer-funded invoices behind a wall of overbroad privilege not only violates public trust, but it may also cross ethical and legal boundaries.

The Public’s Right to Know

At its core, this controversy is about accountability. Public school districts are stewards of community trust and taxpayer money. When attorneys advise school boards, they are by extension, serving the public interest.

If invoices for legal services can be fully withheld or selectively redacted to avoid scrutiny, then what stops school districts from using public funds to engage in covert political retaliation, silencing of dissent, or wasteful legal pursuits? Transparency laws exist to prevent exactly this.

Texas law does not grant attorneys or school districts the power to override transparency with vague appeals to privilege. The public has a right to see how, why, and for what purpose their money is spent, especially when legal services are involved.

Final Thoughts

The withholding of legal invoices by Jackson Walker LLP and Tim Davis in their representation of Keller ISD appears to be not just poor public policy, but legally unsound. The Texas Public Information Act and Open Meetings Act exist to ensure accountability and transparency. Ignoring them or selectively applying them to avoid scrutiny is an affront to the principles of open government.

We call on Keller ISD and its counsel to comply fully with the law, disclose the requested records as required, and restore public trust in the governance of our public schools.

The taxpayers deserve no less.

References

Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 552.001–552.353 (Texas Public Information Act)

Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 551.001–551.146 (Texas Open Meetings Act)

City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000)

Abbott v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 212 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006)

National American Ins. Co. v. Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 925 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996)

Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-676 (2002), ORD-683 (2009)

Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.05, 8.04

Disclaimer:

The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice regarding specific legal matters or rights, readers should consult with a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction.