“I’m sure I did”: Shocking deposition bombshell rocks Ken Paxton campaign as unsealed testimony suggests he handed over confidential client records to opposing side

Texas – A newly revealed court document has thrown Ken Paxton into fresh controversy at a critical political moment, exposing sworn testimony that raises serious questions about his conduct as a lawyer. At the center of the storm is a blunt admission — one that now threatens to reshape both his legal reputation and his ongoing Senate campaign.

The deposition, which had remained hidden for years, reportedly shows Paxton acknowledging that he shared sensitive information tied to a former client — a move widely viewed as a breach of attorney-client trust.

Unsealed testimony reveals key admission

The documents, obtained after years under seal, offer a rare glimpse into Paxton answering questions under oath. According to reporting, the testimony had been kept from public view for an extended period due to legal delays tied to the case.

“The deposition marked a rare instance of Paxton being made to answer questions under oath,” the report explained. “It remained effectively sealed when the case’s judge, a donor to Paxton’s wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, delayed ruling on its sealing for more than four years until the case was settled in 2023.”

Within that testimony lies the most damaging detail. Paxton was questioned about whether he had shared internal records connected to a former client — records he was expected to keep confidential.

His answer was direct and difficult to ignore: “I’m sure I did.”

That statement, simple but powerful, now sits at the heart of the controversy. It suggests that Paxton knowingly passed along information that should have remained protected under legal rules.

The case behind the controversy

The deposition stems from a legal dispute involving business dealings and alleged fraud. The report outlined how Charles Loper III, who managed a blind trust connected to Paxton, filed a lawsuit against Byron Cook, a former associate, over claims tied to an energy company.

“Charles Loper III, trustee of Paxton’s blind trust, sued Byron Cook, a former business associate, claiming fraud by Unity Resources, an energy investment company. Paxton wasn’t a defendant in the suit, but was Unity’s former lawyer, board member and investor,” the report stated.

Even though Paxton was not directly being sued, his role placed him in a sensitive position. As a former lawyer for the company involved, he had a duty to protect its internal communications.

However, during questioning, attention turned to his decision to give certain records to his own attorney, Mitch Little — a lawyer who was also representing Loper in the lawsuit against the same company.

“Attorneys pressed Paxton on having given Unity records to his own attorney Mitch Little — who was also representing Loper in suing Unity — but not to Unity itself. ‘I’m sure I did,’ Paxton said of giving the communications to Little, saying that he had done so to see if they were privileged.”

That explanation has done little to ease concerns, especially among legal experts who point to strict rules governing client confidentiality.

Legal concerns and expert reaction

While some experts declined to fully review the sealed material, the general reaction to the situation has been clear. The act of sharing a client’s information with an opposing party — or someone connected to a lawsuit against that client — is widely seen as a violation.

“Legal ethics experts declined to read the deposition because it is under a protective order, but said giving former client communications to anyone — especially someone suing the client — is a violation of attorney-client privilege,” the report noted. “And, records belong to the client and can’t be withheld, they said.”

These principles are basic to legal practice. Lawyers are expected to guard client information closely, even after their formal role ends. Any deviation from that can raise serious ethical and professional issues.

Political fallout grows during Senate race

The timing of the revelation adds another layer of pressure. Paxton is currently locked in a heated runoff race for the Republican Senate nomination against John Cornyn, a long-time incumbent who has been trailing in polling.

At the same time, Donald Trump had been weighing whether to step in and support Cornyn in an effort to shift the race. However, recent signals suggest Trump is not moving forward with that endorsement — leaving the contest largely in Paxton’s hands.

The emergence of the deposition now complicates that picture. It introduces a new vulnerability at a moment when momentum and perception matter most.

Campaign pushes back

Paxton’s team has rejected the claims and criticized the reporting behind them. A spokesperson for the campaign dismissed the story outright, arguing that it is politically motivated.

“The Wall Street Journal has spent the last year bending over backward to be an extension of the Cornyn campaign, but this one takes the cake.”

That response shows the campaign is framing the issue not as a legal failure, but as part of a broader political fight. Still, the details from the deposition remain difficult to ignore, especially given that they come from sworn testimony.

A defining moment ahead

What began as a sealed legal matter has now turned into a major political flashpoint. The combination of a direct admission, unresolved ethical concerns, and a high-stakes election has created a situation that could shape the future of Paxton’s career.

At its core, the controversy is not just about one statement — it is about trust, responsibility, and the expectations placed on those who hold both legal and public power.

As the Senate race moves forward, voters and party leaders alike will have to weigh what this revelation means — not only for the campaign, but for the broader standards they expect from those seeking higher office.