Alan Jackson Explains How He Defends High-Profile and Controversial Clients

Alan Jackson, the former attorney for Nick Reiner, is opening up about how he approaches high-profile cases and clients who may appear “indefensible” to the public.

Appearing on Let’s Talk Off Camera with Kelly Ripa on Tuesday, Jan. 13, the veteran defense lawyer spoke candidly about legal ethics, constitutional rights, and why he doesn’t focus on whether a client is guilty or innocent.

Jackson, 61, addressed his decision to withdraw from representing Nick Reiner earlier this month. Reiner is charged with murder in the fatal stabbing of his parents, filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner. Jackson stepped away from the case moments into Reiner’s Jan. 7 arraignment, after which Reiner was assigned a public defender.

When asked why he withdrew, Jackson said there are limits to what he can publicly explain. Still, he stressed that his decision was made with his former client’s best interests in mind.

“I want him to get the most robust defense that he possibly can get,” Jackson said, adding that he believes Reiner will receive strong representation from the public defender’s office.

The conversation then turned to a broader question: how does a defense attorney argue cases that seem impossible to defend?

According to Jackson, the idea of an “indefensible” case doesn’t really exist. “There’s very little in the law that’s indefensible,” he said, explaining that his role is not about excusing individuals but about protecting the legal system itself.

“We’re defending the Constitution,” Jackson said. “We’re defending an idea. We’re defending the foundation on which this country was built.”

He emphasized that the U.S. justice system grants people a fundamental right to liberty, and that taking that liberty away is a serious and powerful action. While he acknowledged that punishment can be appropriate in certain cases, he said it must be done correctly and lawfully.

With that mindset, Jackson said he doesn’t focus on who the defendant is. “The word indefensible never comes up,” he explained. “It’s completely defensible, no matter who the person is, if the government doesn’t get it right.”

Jackson also spoke generally about the role mental health can play in criminal cases, clarifying that he was not referring specifically to Reiner. He noted that the justice system does not punish people for being sick, drawing comparisons to medical emergencies like seizures that can lead to tragic outcomes without criminal intent.

He explained that criminal punishment is tied to intent, and that the law is designed to address situations where someone, due to mental illness, cannot form intent or understand their actions. This is where defenses such as not guilty by reason of insanity come into play.

Ripa then asked Jackson directly whether he has ever taken on a case believing the client was probably guilty and relied on courtroom theatrics to win.

“I don’t like to think of it as razzle-dazzle,” Jackson replied, before saying plainly that he has not.

He concluded by reiterating that a client’s guilt or innocence is not his primary concern. “I don’t really care,” he said. “I care about the Constitution. I care about whether or not the government got their job right.”

For Jackson, the duty of a defense attorney is less about winning sympathy and more about ensuring the justice system works exactly as it was designed to.