The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew an opinion because of an apology by the Mississippi lawyer, whom Judge James Ho had called out for appealing to homophobic prejudice.

Attorney Abby Robinson apologized to the court. But she said Wednesday she couldn't comment on the withdrawn opinion because her client's case is still pending.

Robinson wrote in a petition for panel rehearing that the briefs didn't include her personal sentiments, but only information and evidence from the affidavits and pleadings in her client's lawsuit. Acknowledging that Ho felt her brief appealed to prejudice, the petition said the lawyer was only trying to ensure the brief was sufficient. It also suggested Robinson had "no idea" what had led to Ho's opinion.

"Appellant-plaintiff apologizes to this honorable court for offending, but to this date, appellant-plaintiff still has no [idea] of what prejudice has been shown by counsel," the petition said.

|

Read the full pleading, with the apology beginning on page 15:

|

A Fifth Circuit panel consisting of Ho, Judge Patrick Higginbotham and Kurt Engelhardt issued a per curiam opinion Feb. 18 that denied the petition for panel rehearing but also withdrew the previous Feb. 7 opinion that had included Ho's footnote.

"The panel acknowledges counsel's apology expressed in the petition for panel rehearing," said the new opinion.

Meanwhile, Robinson's petition called Ho's footnote "a tormenting censure of appellants-plaintiffs' lawyer," and questioned sanctions against the lawyer. The petition said that the lawsuit was about a child whose pockets were searched for candy at school. The search was intrusive, because it involved feeling around the male tween's genital area, the pleading stated.

"These appellants-plaintiffs are being accused of being [prejudiced] toward gays, (at least that is what the footnote seems to be aiming toward). However, B.O. submitted evidence [in] his deposition that he was not homophobic, but was uncomfortable being touched in that area by his assistance principal whom the children at the school thought [was] gay," said the petition. "If it was what the child said, counsel doesn't understand why asserting a [client's] right to feel free from unwanted searches of his body, makes the counsel wrong for bringing the lawsuit."

Ho's footnote in the original Feb. 7 opinion caused a stir on Twitter, with some lawyers applauding the judge for calling out LGBTQ bias.

|

Related story:

|

'Did Judge Ho Just Do Something Good?': Trump Appointee Causes Stir on Twitter

Ho wrote in his footnote that the brief appealed to prejudice.

"Counsel's opening brief repeatedly contends that 'Brumfield was touching around in minors [sic] pocket, making minor believe the defendant was gay. Her reply brief then concludes that B.O. 'believed that … Broomfield [sic] was gay, making the touch of the minor's privacy area that more offensive,' " the footnote reads. "That is circular logic: Brumfield searched B.O.'s pockets, so he must be gay—and because he is gay, he shouldn't have searched B.O.'s pockets. And the demonstrable failure of counsel's logic makes one wonder why counsel bothers to bring up sexual orientation at all. It should go without saying that members of the bar are expected to engage in legal argument—not prejudice."

The petition said that part of Ho's footnote that accused the lawyer of circular logic had used inaccurate facts from the appeal.

Just as Ho's footnote elicited talk on social media, news of the opinion's withdrawal also made the rounds.

The footnote will no longer serve its purpose, tweeted Pennsylvania appellate solo practitioner Howard Bashman.

"One justification for criticism of counsel's performance is to warn other current or potential clients," tweeted Bashman, the author of Above the Law's How Appealing blog. "By withdrawing that criticism and replacing it with essentially a Judgment Order, the footnote no longer serves that purpose."