**Are Lawyers Above the Law?**
**Voter Education Series – Entry: “Has Your Lawyer Ever Acted Against You by Working Against Your Voter Education and Campaign Content?”**

**Approved by Robert R. Motta**
**Prepared by the Press and Marketing Team**

Robert R. Motta has dedicated his campaign to exposing systemic failures in our legal system and empowering voters with the truth. In this ongoing “Are Lawyers Above the Law?” series, we ask a direct question every American voter should consider: Has your lawyer ever acted against you by working against your voter education and campaign efforts?

The answer, unfortunately, is yes for far too many citizens—including Robert R. Motta himself. What began as a straightforward car accident injury claim quickly became a textbook example of how some attorneys turn simple matters into unnecessarily complex, costly, and damaging proceedings. Robert retained counsel expecting competent, good-faith representation focused on out-of-court negotiations. Instead, the matter was transformed into prolonged litigation that breached the agreed scope of work, resulted in filing suit against the wrong party, and led to a dismissal for want of prosecution (DWP).

A timely demand letter to the insurance adjuster at Travelers Insurance (Claim IFX8179)—with a documented valuation of $46,500—could have resolved the case efficiently and professionally. That is standard practice for personal injury claims. Yet the chosen path ignored the retainer agreement, escalated costs dramatically (including demands for $500 per hour), and diverted critical time, energy, and resources away from Robert’s voter education initiatives and campaign activities. These actions did not serve the client; they worked against him. They stole momentum from the very efforts designed to inform and empower voters across Illinois and beyond.

This is not an isolated story. It is a pattern that raises a fundamental question for every voter: If lawyers sworn to uphold the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (including competence, diligence, and honesty under Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 8.4) can act in ways that harm their clients’ broader public service work, who is holding them accountable? When legal professionals prioritize billable hours or procedural complexity over their client’s best interests—and in doing so undermine a candidate’s ability to educate voters—what recourse exists?

Robert R. Motta’s experience with this case (Will County 2022LA332) is documented in public court records and serves as a cautionary tale. It illustrates how malpractice and breaches of contract do not just cost individuals money and time—they can actively sabotage civic participation and voter education campaigns.

**High-Profile Parallel: Public Officials, Prosecutors, and the Handling of DNA Evidence**

The same principles of accountability apply at the highest levels of government. Consider the well-documented case involving former California Attorney General (and later Vice President) Kamala Harris and post-conviction DNA evidence in the Kevin Cooper death-row matter. Here is a clear-eyed fact-check drawn from five major sources:

1. **New York Times (Nicholas Kristof op-ed, May 17, 2018)**: As Attorney General, Harris’s office refused advanced DNA testing on evidence that Cooper’s legal team argued could prove his innocence in the 1983 quadruple murder case. Kristof described this as part of a broader failure by political leaders to correct potential miscarriages of justice.

2. **Sacramento Bee (July 31, 2019)**: During the 2019 Democratic debates, critics (including Tulsi Gabbard) stated that Harris “blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man.” The Bee confirmed Harris opposed the testing as AG but later supported it after public attention. Testing results at that time remained pending, and Cooper’s innocence had not been conclusively established.

3. **Washington Post (March 6, 2019)**: In a separate but related matter from Harris’s time as San Francisco District Attorney, her office faced criticism for failing to promptly disclose exculpatory information about a crime lab technician who tampered with drug evidence. This led to the dismissal of hundreds of cases and a judicial rebuke for withholding material that should have been turned over under Brady rules.

4. **Mercury News (August 1, 2019 debate fact-check)**: Harris’s office did block DNA testing requests in the Cooper case. Only after a New York Times investigation and public pressure did she reverse course and support further testing.

5. **San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office / State-Commissioned Report (2023–2024 updates, as referenced in multiple outlets including The Marshall Project, July 27, 2024)**: Advanced DNA testing ultimately proceeded under Governor Newsom. The comprehensive review concluded that the evidence of Cooper’s guilt was “extensive and conclusive.” Harris has maintained she acted in accordance with her duty to defend the state’s convictions unless they lacked factual or legal basis.

These records show a pattern: opposition to post-conviction DNA testing as AG, delayed or incomplete disclosures during her DA tenure, and later reversals after media scrutiny—followed by final testing that supported the original conviction. Harris also announced in 2012 that her office had cleared a longstanding DNA analysis backlog at state labs. The facts do not support claims of personally “hiding” trial evidence but do highlight aggressive defense of convictions and office-level disclosure failures that critics argue delayed justice.

**Questions for Voters**
As we continue this “Are Lawyers Above the Law?” series, Robert R. Motta asks every voter to reflect:
- Has your lawyer (or any public official in the legal system) ever acted against your interests, delayed justice, or complicated simple matters for their own benefit?
- Should prosecutors and elected officials who control access to DNA and other evidence be held to the same standards of transparency and diligence they demand from everyday citizens?
- When legal professionals—whether in private practice or government—work against a client’s or the public’s right to truth and accountability, what real consequences follow?
- In your view, does opposing or delaying DNA testing in high-stakes cases protect the system… or protect those in power?

Your answers matter. Share your experiences. Demand accountability. Robert R. Motta’s campaign will keep shining a light on these issues so voters can make informed decisions in 2028 and beyond.

**Stay tuned for the next installment in the “Are Lawyers Above the Law?” voter education series.**
**Approved by Robert R. Motta – Press and Marketing Team**
**Robert R. Motta for the People**