Alexandra ("A.J.") Jackson

Alexandra (A.J.) Jackson is an associate in the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm's Century City office. 

Areas of Practice

A.J.’s practice covers an array of commercial litigation matters, with a focus on trusts and estates disputes, entertainment disputes, constitutional statutory challenges, and defamation litigation. A.J. litigates disputes in the fact-finding stages and in appellate courts on both the state and federal levels. She also has experience litigating at the state agency level before the California Public Employment Relations Board.

A.J. utilizes her areas of legal expertise to fuel her passion for pro bono work. She has an extensive record of working to give back to her community, including through personally finding and pitching pro bono cases to the Firm where she can utilize her areas of expertise to help her clients move forward in a productive way.

A.J. received her B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of California, Los Angeles. She received her J.D. from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, where she was awarded a Stanley and Ilene Gold Honors Scholarship, was presented with the Judge E. Avery Crary Award for her performance as first-place runner up in USC’s Hale Moot Court Competition, and then was awarded a spot to compete nationally on behalf of USC on USC’s National Moot Court Team. A.J. also served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Cormac J. Carney for the Central District of California.

Experience

• Gregory B. Smith, Nicholas Engstrom, The Churchill Institute, Inc. v. Aaron Supple, et al.
  Successfully found and pitched a case to the Firm to defend five Trinity College students. A professor, an institute he formed, and one of the institute’s student members sued five students for defamation. The professor and his institute espoused ideologies based on perceived racism against white people and complained about on-campus cultural houses characterized as “tribal enclaves” of students. The students published a parody article in the student newspaper making fun of the professor and his statements, and posted flyers on campus quoting his own words back to him: “the new racism” – i.e., racism against white people – “is every bit as ugly as the old”. Under a new Connecticut statute, the students filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the Complaint, which was denied. The Connecticut Supreme Court intervened and took the case up to determine whether denial of an anti-SLAPP motion was immediately appealable. It held that denial is immediately appealable. If it were not, aggrieved persons such as these students would be forced to litigate the entire case before they could appeal, which would run contrary to why the legislature passed anti-SLAPP legislation in the first place, and would deny them their free speech and association rights. Smith, et al. v. Supple, et al., 346 Conn. 928 (S. Ct. Conn. May 2, 2023).

Articles

Retail Law Blog

• "NY’s Gendered Pricing Law: Will It Curb the Pink Tax," November 4, 2020