Attorney Abby Robinson accused the Mississippi Bar of "domestic terrorism" in a complaint filed in federal court this week.
Mrs. Robinson sued the Bar, Attorney Jeremy Birdsall, Attorney Melissa Scott, Kate Littrell, and Hinds County Circuit Judge Faye Peterson in U.S. District Court this week. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Kristi Johnson. Magistrate Michael Parker recused himself from the case.
Ms. Littrell, Mr. Birdsall, and Ms. Scott are attorneys for the Mississippi Bar.
The Bar adjudicated several complaints against Mrs. Robinson and scheduled a hearing on December 11.
The hearing was held but no decision has been issued. The hearing lit a fire under Mrs. Robinson as she filed her federal lawsuit ten days later.
The lawsuit makes for um, interesting reading. Spelling errors abound. The complaint accuses the defendants of
Pretty serious charges, if true. However, there is one small observation.
The attached exhibits do not include any social media posts by Mr. Birdsall. However, they do include an email exchange between the two lawyers. Abby Robinson apparently argued the Bar is not an enforcement arm of the State of Mississippi. Mr. Birdsall corrected her of that notion as he pointed out it was created by statute and the Mississippi Supreme Court designated the Bar as a disciplinary agency. The email exchange is posted below.
The complaint also throws in RICO allegations for good measure. Another curious part of the complaint is the inclusion of Hattiesburg attorney Vanessa Jones. The Bar recently suspended Ms. Jones. Mrs. Robinson represents Ms. Jones and included complaints about her treatment in the lawsuit (Improperly joined?).
The complaint is posted below. Frankly, it is convoluted and enters into a logical labyrinth that is hard to follow. Read at your own peril.
24 comments:
Growing up in the sixties and seventies, Perry Mason, Owen Marshall, Petrocelli, I came to think attorneys were our society's most intelligent people. Anymore, not so much.
Oh man this gone get good!
Is she speed running a disbar hearing?
The very first line...."unconstitional." Good grief.
The racial animus is strong in this one.
It's a good thing I read before commenting.
I might have mentioned that she forgot to mention a RICO, but sadly, she did include the RICO.
Robinson v. Bridgewater Owners Assoc, No. 25-60046 (5th Cir. 2025)
"Hope this helps,
Please advise."
I dunno if it helps.
I'm not sure she realizes it could be beyond the Please advise stage by now.
Slinging mud, hoping something might stick. He's got too much time on his hands. But everyone lawyer knows: The process is the punishment.....so make'm earn their spot on the Bar for once.
It's obvious that Ms Robinson can't be accused of using AI to write her gobbly gook.
My few dealings with Atty Robinson a few year ago (business dealings - not utilizing her then existing bar credentials) made me believe she was an incompetent individual as related to her business abilities and her ethics. This filing convinces me that I was wrong at the time - I gave her way too much credit for having at least a little bit of sense.
She should have used ChatGPT.
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2016/11/16/bridgewater-lawsuit/93953290/
"Abby Robinson, the African-American owner of New England Contractors LLC, has filed a federal lawsuit against Bridgewater Owners Association, saying her rights under the Fair Housing Act have been violated by the homeowners' association or individuals working with the association who she said have engaged in improper conduct, interference and retaliation against her."
December 25, 2025 at 3:42 PM
I read earlier (and was looking for the article again) that she lost that lawsuit and then tried to declare bankruptcy. Bridgewater HOA filed to keep their debt as undischargable. I'll post the article if I find it again.
Did find the courtlistener though you gotta pay PACER for motions:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6188631/robinson-v-bridgewater-owners-association-inc/
https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/smith-v-baker-no-899568097
"321 So.3d 575
Leatrice SMITH and Deborah Smith, Appellants
v.Larue BAKER, Individually and in His Professional Capacity, LaRue Discount Drugs, Inc., Justin Estess, M.D., and Brookhaven Anesthesia and Pain Management Associates, P.A., Appellees
NO. 2020-CA-00182-COA
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
June 8, 2021
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: ABBY GALE ROBINSON, Jackson
ANALYSIS
I. Robinson's allegations of misconduct by the circuit judge are frivolous.
¶11. The Smiths’ first three issues on appeal consist of allegations that the circuit judge was biased and violated all five Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We address these allegations in turn and find each to be frivolous."
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/25-60046/25-60046-2025-06-06.html
I Just googled her. She is an attorney that passed the bar in 2016 and recently ran for a seat on the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Thank God she did not win!
There is a video of an interview of her on YouTube. Her dull personality and lack of intelligence are very evident.
Merry Christmas!!
I too had some business dealings with her. She played the race card then as well. She’s not very smart and definitely a race-baiter.
This cite is excellent at shining light on bad lawyers. That’s not what Abby is. Her writing is worse than the jail house writ writers. Calling her a bad lawyer would be a massive insult to bad lawyers everywhere. I sure hope anyone that reads her writing understands that you can’t just string together a bunch of words out of a legal dictionary and have any success in this business.
This filing raises a question regarding character and fitness to practice law. An inquiry should be conducted immediately.
No paywall to read:
Abby Johnson Robinson and New England Contractors LLC v. Anshika Singh
https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/court-of-appeals/2020/2019-ca-00397-coa.html
July 2020:
"Several Jackson police officers plan to file a class action lawsuit against top brass in the Jackson Police Department and its chief, James Davis, for what they say is corruption and discrimination inside the department.
Local attorney Abby Robinson held a press conference Tuesday announcing the impending legal action. Robinson is representing more than two dozen current and former JPD officers. "
Also-
"Completely false,' Chief Davis responds
Davis on Wednesday morning called the lawsuit "completely false."
He also questioned the timing and motive of the lawsuit. Abby Robinson's husband, former assistant chief Ricky Robinson, had been demoted to sergeant just days before the lawsuit was filed, he said" https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/07/22/jackson-ms-police-officers-sue-city-discrimination-corruption/5485271002/
Earlier that year WLBT reported:
"JACKSON, Miss. (WLBT) - Internal documents obtained by 3 On Your Side show a Jackson Police Department command staff conflicted over the hiring of a man with a violent criminal past.
The department’s background investigations report for Xavier Hill shows two members of JPD leadership -- Cmdr. Tyrone Buckley and Deputy Chief Tina Wallace -- rejecting the application in July 2019.
In August, Assistant Chief Ricky Robinson reversed the decision and approved Hill’s application." https://www.wlbt.com/2020/01/24/man-with-felony-record-hired-by-jpd-then-charged-with-stealing-ten-days-later/
Speaking of AI… thought it might be fun to let it take the place of judge and respond to the complaint. It was not kind:
“The Court addresses this pleading as a whole, not as a collection of grievances, but as an instrument of advocacy.
Advocacy requires selection. This complaint exhibits accumulation.
The Court is not unmindful of the seriousness of the allegations asserted—constitutional violations, professional discipline, reputational harm, and personal injury. But seriousness is not established by quantity, nor by volume, nor by the repeated incantation of constitutional provisions. It is established by clarity, restraint, and proof.
This pleading assigns equal rhetorical weight to matters that are not equal in law.
A missed hearing is treated as equivalent to racketeering.
A disputed disciplinary action is elevated to terrorism.
Procedural irregularities are bundled with fraud and conspiracy.
That leveling is not persuasive. It is disorienting.
The Court notes, in particular, the following recurring defects:
1. Indiscriminate Attribution.
The repeated use of “ALL DEFENDANTS” substitutes accusation for pleading. Liability in federal court is individual. Collective blame obscures causation and invites dismissal.
2. Doctrinal Confusion.
Judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, Eleventh Amendment principles, Ex parte Young, and §1983 are cited accurately in isolation and misapplied in combination. The complaint seeks retrospective monetary relief while invoking doctrines that permit only prospective relief. This is not zealous lawyering; it is internal contradiction.
3. RICO as Ornament.
Civil RICO is invoked without pleading predicate acts, enterprise structure, continuity, or proximate causation. The statute is treated as an amplifier rather than a cause of action. Courts do not permit RICO to be used as emphasis.
4. Tone Over Task.
Capitalization, repetition, and moral condemnation are used where factual chronology is required. Federal pleading is not a closing argument. Emotion does not substitute for elements.
5. Race as Assertion, Not Analysis.
The Court addresses this carefully. Race is referenced, but not litigated. There are no comparators, no patterns, no facts tying race to outcome. When race is invoked without discipline, it weakens—not strengthens—the claim and diminishes the gravity of genuine Equal Protection violations.
6. Failure to Prioritize.
The complaint treats every alleged wrong as existential. Courts resolve disputes by hierarchy: jurisdiction before merits, immunity before liability, facts before conclusions. This pleading resists hierarchy and suffers for it.
The result is a document that overstates, overreaches, and under-delivers.
Not because the plaintiffs could not have viable claims—but because the pleading refuses to decide which claims matter most and why.
The Court does not doubt the plaintiffs’ sense of injury.
It doubts the pleading’s respect for the craft required to redress it.
Federal court is not persuaded by indignation. It is persuaded by discipline.
Those who wish to challenge power must do so with precision.
Those who invoke the Constitution must honor its structure.
Those who raise serious allegations must prove that they understand the weight of what they allege.
This complaint does not fail for lack of passion.
It fails for lack of judgment.
And judgment, not outrage, is the currency of the Court.”
Post a Comment