Up until the day of his court martial, yes. When the trial was about to start, he changed his tune. From the CAAFlog:
"The providence inquiry [guilty plea questioning by the judge] was extensive — with the bulk of the questioning coming at the suggestion of the trial counsel to foreclose possible avenues of appellate attack, and eliciting some damaging statements to boot. At one point, LTC Lakin appeared to draw a distinction between the orders to report to his brigade commander’s office — which he seemed quite willing to admit were lawful — versus the order to deploy to Fort Campell — which he characterized as a step in deploying to Afghanistan and appeared to tie to President Obama’s surge order. Judge Lind carefully inquired into whether LTC Lakin thought he had a legal defense to violating the order to report to Fort Campell. And she elicited several statements from him that the order was legal, he had a duty to obey it, and he knew at the time that the order was legal. And, of course, he said all of that under oath."
Given the playing rules that Lind put into place by ignoring the elements of lawfulness for Article 90, Lakin could honestly say that he had no defense he could offer against the charges.
Funny thing how, after somebody cuts off both your legs, you’re suddenly able to agree in good conscience that you can’t walk.