Gabrielle M. Jackson
Gabrielle Jackson's practice has focused on the representation of attorneys and accountants in malpractice actions, the defense of Director and Officer liability claims, and the defense of judges and commissioners in disciplinary matters pending before the California Commission on Judicial Performance. Her work has repeatedly demonstrated to the Commission that either no discipline should be imposed, or that discipline should be private.
Before deciding to become a lawyer, Gabrielle was a senior accountant at a life insurance company, completing the written requirements to be a CPA, before changing career paths. Because of her background in accounting, family law and employment law, she regularly works on malpractice actions which arise from underlying cases in those fields. She often handles cases in which a series of malpractice actions are generated from a unique practice area, including the successful representation of law firms in several cases arising from disallowed tax structures. She regularly defends matters brought by bankruptcy trustees and receivers. She is the firm expert on jurisdiction and venue and on the right to and procedures applicable in arbitration.
Gabrielle's work has led directly to settlement, well within policy limits, of a multitude of actions which arose after the federal government changed its policy for handling applications for residency under the Immigrant Investors Act, which was passed by congress during the Reagan administration. The law firm defended by Robie & Matthai developed programs intended to allow immigrants to obtain citizenship under the Act through a complex limited partnership investment vehicle. After repeatedly issuing approvals for the program, the INS, under a new administration, declared the program invalid, leaving the investors in various stages of the immigration process. Many had invested their life savings and moved their families to the United States, only to find that, despite the approval given before they came, the government was refusing to allow continued residency. A series of creative settlements brought cases filed by multiple investors to conclusion.
Gabrielle's work also enabled the favorable settlement, for a national law firm, of an action which arose after the demise of a Ponzi scheme, which, unbeknownst to the firm, had been orchestrated by a partner in a branch office using the firm's resources.
Gabrielle's pending motion for summary judgment convinced a previously intransigent receiver that settlement was the only wise choice in an action arising from a failed series of investments in real estate developments. Robie & Matthai's client had, prior to retaining counsel, improvidently provided deposition testimony and a plethora of documents to the receiver, only to have the information used against him. Gabrielle was able to show that, despite the "red flags," the lawyer she represented did not know that the developer client was engaged in a multitude of fraudulent activities.
Gabrielle's detailed analysis of the documentation maintained by a business manager allowed Robie & Matthai to favorably settle, before litigation was filed, claims made by a well-known professional athlete against a business manager who had represented the athlete for many years. The athlete, supported by his new manager, asserted numerous claims, including mismanagement of funds, improper advice regarding the purchase of a failed life insurance policy, failures to purchase appropriate liability insurance, failure to discover embezzlement by an employee, improper handling of profit sharing and pension plans for the athlete's multiple corporate entities and failure to include legitimate deductions on multiple tax returns. Her diligent digging through the multitude of boxes and computer records enabled us to demonstrate that the manager had acted within the standard of care.
Multiple cases against a firm which worked with KPMG in creating allegedly abusive tax structures were favorably resolved as a result of the close working relationship Gabrielle maintained among the insureds, defense counsel and the carrier, despite the multiple coverage problems, which could have made the results impossible without that cooperation.
Service to the Community
|This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [site map]|