The veteran defense attorney’s decision signals a major shift in strategy — and raises new questions about what comes next in the high-profile legal battle

A Significant Change in the Defense Team

January 7, 2026: In a development that has quickly reframed the tone of the proceedings, defense attorney Alan Jackson has filed notice to withdraw from representing Nick Reiner, marking a major shake-up in the case. Jackson — known for handling complex, celebrity-adjacent legal matters — had been considered a central figure in shaping Reiner’s strategy.

His move to exit the case comes at a delicate moment, just as filings were entering a more aggressive phase and deadlines were tightening. HOLR breaks down the story here: anytime a lead attorney steps aside mid-case, it forces the court — and the public — to reassess what pressures may be happening behind the scenes.

Why Jackson Is Stepping Away

Court paperwork indicates that Jackson cited professional reasons for withdrawing, language that typically covers a range of possibilities — from strategic disagreements and client-counsel conflicts to logistical or ethical considerations that make continued representation impractical.

Neither Jackson nor Reiner’s camp has publicly elaborated on the specific cause. Legal observers note, however, that withdrawals of this nature often follow internal disputes about approach, risk tolerance, or resource allocation. When case trajectories shift, lawyers sometimes step aside rather than advance arguments they no longer feel aligned with.

What remains clear: the decision was serious enough that Jackson chose to formally remove himself rather than continue navigating tensions internally.

What This Means for Reiner’s Position

A mid-case attorney departure can create short-term vulnerability. New counsel must review extensive documentation, re-evaluate strategy, and rebuild communication with the court — all while staying aligned with deadlines.

For Reiner, this transition may slow momentum temporarily. At the same time, it also provides an opportunity for reset — allowing a new legal voice to reassess tone, evidence framing, and negotiation posture. HOLR breaks down the story here: fresh counsel often brings perspective that can either soften or intensify the path ahead.

The Court’s Role Now

When attorneys withdraw, the court typically:

confirms the withdrawal is appropriate under ethics rules

ensures the client is informed and protected

establishes clear expectations for incoming representation

adjusts schedules only when absolutely necessary

Judges generally prefer continuity, but they balance that preference with the right of any party to change lawyers — especially if trust between attorney and client has eroded.

A Reputation Shift — For Everyone Involved

Alan Jackson’s presence lent a sense of steadiness and high-level experience to the defense. His exit subtly alters perception. To some observers, it may signal turbulence or internal disagreement. To others, it may simply reflect a strategic evolution.

Reiner, meanwhile, faces the challenge of maintaining public confidence during a period of uncertainty. In cases with elevated visibility, legal narrative becomes almost as important as courtroom facts — and any shift in representation invites speculation about what might have prompted it.

Possible Next Steps

Attention now turns to who replaces Jackson — and how soon. Likely scenarios include:

appointment of a new high-profile defense attorney

addition of a specialist focused on negotiation or trial work

potential delay requests as new counsel gets up to speed

Whether the transition leads to settlement talks or signals preparation for a more aggressive courtroom push remains to be seen.

Why This Moment Matters

Withdrawals like this don’t automatically change outcomes — but they often change tone. When leadership on a legal team shifts, strategy, messaging, and expectations shift with it.

For Reiner, the path forward hinges on stability, clarity, and the ability of incoming counsel to rebuild momentum quickly.