Attorney Rob Hopkins was arrested and charged with resisting arrest on April 3, 2026, following a confrontational exchange with Judge Lori Jackson during a court hearing in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma.
The incident occurred in Ada, Oklahoma, during a routine custody hearing. According to reporting from KFOR and National Today, the proceedings escalated when a dispute arose regarding the presentation of evidence and the conduct of the legal counsel.
Custody Hearing Dispute
The tension in the courtroom stemmed from the absence of Hopkins’ client. Lloyd Palmer, another attorney present during the hearing, stated that the mother in the custody case could not attend to testify or provide evidence because she had an arrest warrant out for her.
Palmer indicated that the situation deteriorated when Hopkins allegedly attempted to act as a witness and testify on behalf of his client, rather than maintaining the role of legal counsel. Palmer noted that Judge Jackson would not allow this breach of procedure.
Courtroom Confrontation
Courtroom footage captured multiple instances of Hopkins and Judge Jackson speaking over one another. The exchange led to a direct warning from the bench regarding Hopkins’ behavior.
You interrupt me one more time, you are being held in direct contempt of court. And then watch that smirk.
Judge Lori Jackson
Hopkins responded to the judge by stating, I don’t have a smirk on my face,
to which Judge Jackson replied, I am not going to tolerate this from you, sir.
Following the confrontation, Hopkins argued that he had been interrupted while attempting to make his argument. Judge Jackson maintained that Hopkins was the one who had interrupted her statement.
Arrest and Legal Charges
The hearing concluded with Hopkins being led out of the courtroom in handcuffs. In addition to the contempt of court warning, Hopkins was charged with resisting arrest.
During the proceedings, Hopkins questioned the judge’s motives, asking, Is it because I’m a transgender attorney practicing all over the state?
Attorney Lloyd Palmer addressed this claim, stating that identity was not a factor in the outcome of the day. Palmer asserted that any lawyer who had behaved in the same manner would have received the same result as Hopkins.