Nick Reiner's attorneys argue in new probate court filings that administrators of his childhood trust fund are violating his constitutional right to counsel by withholding $558,000 he says was owed to him three years ago.
Reiner, who has pleaded not guilty to a grand jury indictment charging him with killing his parents, filmmaker Rob Reiner and Michele Reiner, inside the family's Brentwood home last December, is now fighting on two legal fronts, one in criminal court, the other in Los Angeles probate court, where the money sits just out of reach. His probate attorney, Anita Wu, filed a new brief on September 17 invoking a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that held a criminal defendant has the right to be represented by an attorney "whom the defendant can afford," NBC Los Angeles reported.
Without that money, Reiner cannot re-hire the private defense lawyer he wants. He is instead represented by a deputy public defender, not because he qualifies for one on the merits, his attorneys contend, but because the trustees will not release funds that were already his.
The trust, which Reiner's attorneys estimate once held roughly $1.6 million, was structured to release the first of two distributions when Reiner turned 30 in 2023. Wu's filing calls that payment "mandatory, unconditional, and immediately due." The trustees never sent it.
Now the trustees argue that California's "slayer statute", a law designed to prevent a killer from inheriting money as a result of the victim's death, bars any release until the criminal case is resolved. They also contend Reiner effectively consented to leaving the money in trust by not demanding it when it came due.
Wu's filing pushes back hard on both points. The slayer statute, she argues, was written to block inheritances that are contingent on someone's death. A trust distribution that was already owed before anyone died is a different animal entirely. Some of the money, Wu notes, came from Reiner's grandfather, the late comedian and actor Carl Reiner, funds that had nothing to do with Rob or Michele Reiner's passing.
The trustees first invoked the slayer statute earlier in the probate dispute, setting up the constitutional collision now before the court.
Wu put the timing problem plainly in the September 17 filing:
"If Nick had received the distribution when it was due, the Slayer Statute could not now require him to return it. The Trustee's failure to pay on time does not change that."
While Reiner waits, the trust is shrinking. His attorneys allege that lawyers representing the trustees have drawn approximately $350,000 from the trust account in legal fees, nearly two-thirds of the $558,000 Reiner says he is owed. The trust's original $1.6 million balance is dwindling, and every month of litigation eats into whatever remains.
That detail sharpens the constitutional argument. If the trust's own lawyers can bill against the fund, but the beneficiary cannot use his share to hire a defense attorney in a case where he faces life in prison without the possibility of parole, the arrangement starts to look less like prudent stewardship and more like a system that pays everyone except the person whose money it is.
The grand jury indictment accuses Reiner of using a knife to carry out the killings and includes a special circumstance allegation that he was lying in wait before the attack. Reiner denied the special circumstance allegation alongside his not-guilty plea.
The practical fallout is already visible in the criminal case. Defense attorney Alan Jackson briefly represented Reiner but withdrew because Reiner was unable to pay him. Reiner is now represented by a deputy public defender, competent counsel, presumably, but not the counsel Reiner chose.
Wu's filing frames that loss in constitutional terms, citing the 2016 Supreme Court opinion:
"The Court emphasized that the right is 'fundamental,' and that '[d]eprivation of the right to counsel of choice' is 'complete' when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants."
LA County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced before Reiner's most recent criminal court appearance that his office would not seek the death penalty. The maximum sentence Reiner faces if convicted is life in prison without parole. Reiner appeared in criminal court last week and agreed to an indefinite delay to the start of trial, a delay driven at least in part by the unresolved question of who will defend him and with what resources.
Meanwhile, other members of the Reiner family have begun to step back into public life as the case grinds forward.
A probate court judge is expected to take up the trust dispute in late October. Wu's filing asks the court to separate two questions: whether Reiner killed his parents, a matter for the criminal trial, and whether he can use money that was already his to mount a defense.
"Whether Nick feloniously and intentionally killed his parents is not before this Court, and he agrees that question should not be litigated here while the criminal case is pending. But whether he may defend himself with his own money cannot wait for that answer."
That framing puts the probate judge in an uncomfortable spot. Releasing the money does not declare Reiner innocent. But withholding it may effectively strip a constitutional right that the Supreme Court has called fundamental, and that, once lost, cannot be restored after the fact.
Rob Reiner, the acclaimed director and actor, was honored posthumously even as his son's legal battles continue to unfold across two courtrooms.
The case also carries a quieter dimension for the broader Reiner family. Romy Reiner's recent public appearances have drawn attention to the family's grief alongside the legal proceedings.
Constitutional rights do not come with an asterisk that says "unless the charge is serious enough." If the money was owed before anyone died, the question is not whether Nick Reiner deserves sympathy, it is whether the law means what it says.
