in Re State Bar of Texas, 440 S.W.3d 621

Joshua Bledsoe was acquitted of aggravated robbery; an expunction order for his arrest records was signed months later.
The Commission for Lawyer Discipline began investigating alleged prosecutorial misconduct by prosecutor Jon L. Hall after reports and a partial trial transcript showed suppression of exculpatory evidence (a 911 tape).
The Commission filed a disciplinary evidentiary petition against Hall; Bledsoe consented to the Commission’s access to the expunged records.
A visiting judge in the criminal court ruled the expunction precluded the Commission from using any records derived from the criminal case and ordered the Commission to turn over related investigative materials.
The grievance panel interpreted that order as barring the disciplinary prosecution and granted Hall summary judgment; the Commission sought mandamus review in the Texas Supreme Court.
The Texas Supreme Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and conditionally granted mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its December 11, 2012 order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an expunction order bars the Commission from using criminal-trial records in a disciplinary proceeding	Expunction should not prevent disciplinary use; Bledsoe consented and the Commission needs the records to prosecute misconduct	The expunction order precludes any use of records derived from the criminal case, including by the Commission	The court held expunction did not bar use here; the trial court abused its discretion and must vacate its order
Whether an acquitted defendant may waive expunction protections to allow use of records	A defendant may voluntarily waive expunction rights and permit use of records in collateral proceedings	The trial court’s interpretation of the statute forbids such use regardless of waiver	The court held the acquitted defendant can waive expunction rights; waiver here supports allowing use of records

In re State Bar of Texas, 113 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. 2003) (mandamus appropriate to prevent district-court interference with attorney-discipline regulation)
State Bar of Tex. v. Jefferson, 942 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. 1997) (district court injunction against grievance proceedings warrants mandamus)
Ex parte S.C., 305 S.W.3d 258 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (expunction statute enacted to protect acquitted defendants’ reputations)
In re Expunction of Jones, 311 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.) (defendant may waive expunction rights under article 1.14)
W.V. v. State, 669 S.W.2d 876 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (expunged records can be accessed if put at issue in subsequent proceedings)
Gomez v. Texas Educ. Agency, 354 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) (expunction does not automatically bar all references to prior arrest in administrative/contested proceedings)
Bustamante v. Bexar County Sheriff’s Civil Serv. Comm’n, 27 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) (civil bodies may rely on witness testimony or personal observations notwithstanding expunction)