In a hotly contested divorce with significant property issues, Ginny (Virginia) Searcy sought to compel production of communications between Relator Conner Searcy's assistant, Katherine Hildebrand, and his lawyers; he objected on attorney-client privilege and work-product grounds, supported by an affidavit.¹

The associate judge of the 301st District Court in Dallas overruled his objections and motions for protection; the Fifth Court of Appeals denied mandamus (05-25-00008-CV) in an opinion by Justice Jackson.¹ The Court requested merits briefing in June 2025, set argument for February 11, 2026, and on February 3, 2026 abated the case under Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b) and canceled argument after the real party moved to cancel argument and dismiss; a notice was filed February 4, and on April 17, 2026 the Court lifted the abatement, reinstated the case, and dismissed the motion to cancel argument and dismiss as moot (docket).

Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) after the Fifth Court of Appeals denied relief; argument set for February 11, 2026, then abated and canceled; reinstated April 17, 2026 (docket).

1. Whether the Court's writ power over "any other officer of state government" extends to associate judges in family district court
2. Whether mandamus is appropriate for court-ordered disclosure of documents supported by privilege in an unrebutted affidavit
3. Whether the judge abused his discretion in ordering disclosure of communications with Hildebrand, offered as a representative of the client under Tex. R. Evid. 503(a)(2)(B)
4. Whether the Court should address the Dallas court's use of Rule 52.3 to deny mandamus and its verbatim-quotation requirement¹

Searcy (Relator): Hildebrand acted as his representative to facilitate his representation, so her communications with counsel are privileged, and the unrebutted affidavit establishes that.¹

Ginny Searcy (Real Party in Interest): the communications are discoverable.

The Court requested full briefing and set the case for argument.

None noted