Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alan Jackson is the sleaziest of the sleazy lawyers - he has lied to the court and conspired to spoil jury pools for his defense clients. He has no ethical core.

I have no doubt he wanted this case because he thought it would be very lucrative given Nick’s interest in his parent’s estate. My guess is that his older brother as executor refused to release funds to finance the defense of the brother who brutally murdered their parents. Nick will be barred from inheriting when he is convicted of the murders because California has a slayer statute.

Furthermore, Nick will be better represented by the very experienced and deeply dedicated career public defender Kimberly Greene who was assigned to his case. She is devoted to the defense of indigent defendants and undoubtedly has abundant experience with representing mentally ill and addicted clients. She also has the respect of her peers in ways that Alan Jackson doesn’t and never will.

Alan Jackson can be seen in several older episodes of Dateline, 48 Hours etc. because he was once a prosecutor who was allegedly avowed to be a prosecutor his entire career. He prosecuted Phil Spector among other high profile cases. He ran for the LA District Attorney job and lost to a female colleague, after which he whinged like a man child and quit to become a slimy low life type of defense attorney - the kind who worships the money, the win at any cost, and cares nothing for the integrity of the system and public confidence in the courts - something attorneys are ethically bound to promote and not attack. His hijinks in the case of Commonwealth v Karen Read were some of the scummiest I’ve seen in 45 years of following the law and 30 of them as a law student then lawyer myself - and a former defender and prosecutor.

Nick Reiner is better off with greedy amoral Jackson off the case. So is the general public, because Jackson would have made a spectacle and a farce of Reiner’s defense.

‘His hijinks in the case of Commonwealth v Karen Read were some of the scummiest I’ve seen in 45 years of following the law and 30 of them as a law student then lawyer myself - and a former defender and prosecutor’

Can you explain? I only loosely followed that case. Was she acquitted?

Anonymous wrote:Nick doesn't have his own money and cannot inherit anything from his parents' estate because he is accused of killing them. He has no money.

Anonymous wrote:you should all just throw out bullshit ideas with no basis in fact. you're good at that.

Anonymous wrote:Alan Jackson is the sleaziest of the sleazy lawyers - he has lied to the court and conspired to spoil jury pools for his defense clients. He has no ethical core.

I have no doubt he wanted this case because he thought it would be very lucrative given Nick’s interest in his parent’s estate. My guess is that his older brother as executor refused to release funds to finance the defense of the brother who brutally murdered their parents. Nick will be barred from inheriting when he is convicted of the murders because California has a slayer statute.

Furthermore, Nick will be better represented by the very experienced and deeply dedicated career public defender Kimberly Greene who was assigned to his case. She is devoted to the defense of indigent defendants and undoubtedly has abundant experience with representing mentally ill and addicted clients. She also has the respect of her peers in ways that Alan Jackson doesn’t and never will.

Alan Jackson can be seen in several older episodes of Dateline, 48 Hours etc. because he was once a prosecutor who was allegedly avowed to be a prosecutor his entire career. He prosecuted Phil Spector among other high profile cases. He ran for the LA District Attorney job and lost to a female colleague, after which he whinged like a man child and quit to become a slimy low life type of defense attorney - the kind who worships the money, the win at any cost, and cares nothing for the integrity of the system and public confidence in the courts - something attorneys are ethically bound to promote and not attack. His hijinks in the case of Commonwealth v Karen Read were some of the scummiest I’ve seen in 45 years of following the law and 30 of them as a law student then lawyer myself - and a former defender and prosecutor.

Nick Reiner is better off with greedy amoral Jackson off the case. So is the general public, because Jackson would have made a spectacle and a farce of Reiner’s defense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any theories?

Gift link

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/movies/nick-reiner-lawyer-alan-jackson.html?unlocked_article_code=1.C1A.YZ98.ETunrH3QKbo6&smid=nytcore-ios-share

He realized it wasn't worth the stress?

No hun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time has passed and I think this lawyer realized he doesn’t want to be the new Johnnie Cochran, Bob Shapiro, Barry Scheck, Robert Kardashian et al.

They all basically lost their legal reputations and no one refers to them with any reverence today.

This would not be defending an accused “American hero”

This would be taking money to defend someone legitimately accused of murdering a beloved American icon who had never done anyone wrong.

I don’t know this lawyer’s name and he’s fortunate that no one else does, because it would be easy evidence of a total cash grab and he’d lose his entire reputation in the area in which he practices

Better to withdraw and be able to say he withdrew within less than a month after an initial retainer (innocent until proven guilty) and then getting out of that town called Dodge

You exhibit a shocking lack of sophistication

Anonymous wrote:Nick probably refused to plea not guilty by reason of insanity. He’s going to do it his way. Loser.

Anonymous wrote:Time has passed and I think this lawyer realized he doesn’t want to be the new Johnnie Cochran, Bob Shapiro, Barry Scheck, Robert Kardashian et al.

They all basically lost their legal reputations and no one refers to them with any reverence today.

This would not be defending an accused “American hero”

This would be taking money to defend someone legitimately accused of murdering a beloved American icon who had never done anyone wrong.

I don’t know this lawyer’s name and he’s fortunate that no one else does, because it would be easy evidence of a total cash grab and he’d lose his entire reputation in the area in which he practices

Better to withdraw and be able to say he withdrew within less than a month after an initial retainer (innocent until proven guilty) and then getting out of that town called Dodge