From Defender to Enforcer: Marissa Roy’s Case for a More Activist City Attorney

Video Interview: https://youtu.be/3jBBGasSaWs

An incumbent probably has to be a special kind of terrible at her job in our top-two primary system to come in third — even more to draw criticism from across the political spectrum.

Hydee Feldstein Soto entered office framing herself as an independent legal professional — an outsider to City Hall politics who could bring managerial discipline, legal expertise and problem-solving skills to a troubled city government.

A fixer.

But a fixer, she was not.

Critics have accused Feldstein Soto of taking too many cases to trial rather than settling, increasing the city’s liability costs. During her tenure, the city faced several multimillion-dollar jury verdicts, raising questions about litigation strategy and whether earlier intervention could have reduced financial exposure.

A manager? Apparently not.

Former and current prosecutors have alleged retaliation against employees who questioned prosecutorial decisions. Former supervising attorney Michelle McGinnis filed legal claims alleging ethical violations, improper political considerations in charging decisions and retaliatory employment actions.

Independent? Questionable.

Among the most serious allegations Feldstein Soto has faced are claims that prosecutors were directed to dismiss or alter cases involving campaign donors. Internal communications obtained by reporters showed career prosecutors objecting to the dismissal of at least one price-gouging case involving political contributors.

Professional? Perhaps. Public protector, not so much.

Tenant advocates criticized her office’s refusal to approve several contracts supporting eviction defense services and rental assistance programs. Housing advocates also criticized her office’s legal opposition to affordable housing projects, including the controversial Venice Dell Community development, arguing that those actions obstructed voter-approved housing policies.

Civil liberties groups and progressive organizations have criticized her office for prosecuting protesters involved in demonstrations related to housing, policing and Palestine, arguing that those prosecutions risked criminalizing political expression.

And as Feldstein Soto sought reelection, she opposed recommendations from the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission that would have separated the city’s civil legal representation from its prosecutorial functions.

With that record in mind, Random Lengths interviewed Marissa Roy and potentially runner up John McKinney (when he agrees to an interview with RLn) through the standard Feldstein Soto established.

Marissa Roy, a public interest attorney, argues that she is not simply offering a vision for the office — she has already done the work she wants to bring to the City Attorney’s Office.

Roy describes her career as focused on consumer protection, workers’ rights, civil rights and government accountability. A former attorney with the California Department of Justice and the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, she has litigated cases involving wage theft, tenant protections, corporate misconduct and public-interest enforcement. She also worked with the Public Rights Project, advising local governments on constitutional issues and legal challenges.

Her campaign centers on transforming the City Attorney’s Office from a largely reactive institution into a proactive force for protecting residents and holding powerful interests accountable.

“The city attorney has the powers of any business or anything that is unlawful, unfair, deceptive,” Roy said, arguing that the office has authority similar to the state Attorney General’s Office in consumer protection matters.

She said the office could pursue cases involving companies that exploit workers, harm tenants, dump toxic chemicals, or engage in deceptive practices — then reinvest recovered funds into communities harmed by those actions.

At one point, Roy contrasted that vision with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, saying, “It would be great if the district attorney would do that. But it’s a question [of] political will. The district attorney could be doing that, but chooses not to.”

Roy argued that Los Angeles has underused the city attorney’s consumer protection authority and needs an office willing to aggressively pursue public-interest litigation.

Protecting Local Government Authority

Another central theme of Roy’s campaign is defending local government authority against federal overreach.

Drawing from her experience representing Los Angeles County in legal challenges against federal actions, Roy argued that cities and states must defend their constitutional authority when the federal government attempts to use funding threats or regulatory pressure to influence local decisions.

She pointed to conflicts with the Trump administration over attempts to withhold federal grants as an example of why cities need strong legal representation.

Roy argued that federalism protections are not partisan issues but constitutional safeguards designed to preserve the ability of states and local governments to govern themselves.

She said Los Angeles should join other California jurisdictions that have challenged federal policies involving immigration enforcement, public safety, health care and research funding.

A More Community-Centered City Attorney

Roy also argued that the City Attorney’s Office should have a stronger relationship with neighborhood councils and local communities.

She described neighborhood councils as an important civic resource that can connect residents with city government, particularly on issues involving immigrant rights, public safety and access to information.

Roy criticized instances where community efforts to distribute “know your rights” information faced resistance from city prosecutors, arguing that the City Attorney’s Office should not act as an obstacle to community outreach.

She proposed restoring and expanding the neighborhood prosecutor model by adding attorneys, investigators and community outreach specialists who could work directly with residents to develop public safety strategies.

For Roy, the City Attorney’s Office should be visible and accessible — not an institution that operates primarily from City Hall.

Police Accountability and Litigation Management

Roy argued that the City Attorney’s Office should do more than defend the city after misconduct occurs. It should help prevent lawsuits by identifying risks, improving compliance and ensuring departments follow constitutional requirements.

She criticized what she described as a narrow approach to police accountability that focuses on defending agencies rather than addressing the underlying conduct that leads to litigation.

Roy pointed to lawsuits involving Los Angeles Police Department protest responses as examples where earlier legal guidance and intervention could have prevented future violations.

“The best way to defend your client is to prevent the lawsuit,” she argued.

She said the city attorney should work with the Police Commission, LAPD leadership, City Council, and other departments to identify patterns of misconduct and develop corrective strategies.

If departments fail to address violations, Roy said the office must be willing to use legal tools — including court action — to compel compliance.

Reducing City Liability Costs

Roy also framed rising city liability costs as a management problem.

She criticized what she described as excessive reliance on outside legal firms, costly settlements and judgments that could have been avoided through better oversight.

Her approach would involve analyzing recurring lawsuits, identifying patterns and developing protocols to prevent future claims.

Roy said the city attorney should work with the city controller, department leaders, and the City Council to determine where the city is vulnerable and address problems before they become expensive legal battles.

She argued that investing in compliance, training, and infrastructure can ultimately save taxpayers money.

Public Interest vs. Corporate Influence

Ultimately, Roy framed her campaign as a choice between two visions of the City Attorney’s Office.

One, she argued, maintains the status quo and protects powerful interests.

The other uses government authority to defend workers, tenants, consumers and vulnerable communities.

Roy said Los Angeles already has strong laws protecting residents — but those protections mean little without enforcement.

Her message is that the City Attorney’s Office should not simply defend the city when problems arise. It should use its legal authority to prevent harm, hold institutions accountable and serve the public interest.