This issue adds to the incessant patterns of arbitrariness and of abuse by the mod you identify.
The post at issue can be paraphrased as: "Q: When filing a motion, should I select for "What are you filing" the option that reads "Motion"?". The question is tautological, and as such it requires no more than basic command of English. It is ludicrous to pretend that an inquiry so trivial entails legal advice.
Where an OP hesitates about something so simple, inquiring of him "Could you elaborate on what makes you think this might not be the case?" sometimes leads to clarification of details that hitherto had gone unnoticed, were omitted, or were poorly worded. This approach toward OPs is in stark contrast with impulsively voting to close their posts under some inadequate pretext.
Reasonableness never depends on the sheer number of votes (this includes VTCs), but the accumulation of five Reopen votes should hint the mod that his censorship of the post might have been inappropriate. You even offered a clear, attestable explanation of why the OP's post falls short of request for legal advice. Some users --be it due to arrogance, bias, or poor reasoning-- might still be adamant that the post should remain closed, but that limitation disqualifies them from using the privileges that SE grants only to moderators, i.e., users who by definition are presumed to be unbiased and judicious.
This mod's decision to repeatedly close the post at issue and, in doing so, to override SE's functionality about Reopen votes has nothing to do with the slogans "facilitation and cooperative approach to moderation" and "light touch" with which he campaigned during the Moderator Election in 2019. Nor are his recurrent, unilateral, and intransigent acts of censorship any consistent with his statements
I am always open to the possibility that my understanding is wrong
I would err on the side of leaving questions open for the community to
decide what to do.
He "would", but he does not. Closing a post twice, and on the second time obviating the requirement for four additional VTC to match the five Reopen votes, is the opposite of letting the community decide what to do.
When I asked that mod to stop deleting others' answers, some eluded the actual problem and instead took issue with my "personally targeting a particular moderator". I also got reprimanded in private. Meanwhile, others' posts on LawMeta keep reflecting that the mod's pattern of censorship has not been addressed [by SE] effectively ... or maybe not addressed at all.
Instead of reprimanding me again for openly comparing a mod's campaign statements and his actual practices, hopefully this time all stakeholders will remember that being a moderator is not just about being a celebrity with SE privileges. Any moderator should expect his [mis-]representations to undergo scrutiny by the community, especially where the problem persists and SE does not really hold him accountable.
The post at issue should be reopened and the criterion of "request for legal advice" ought to be applied judiciously, but the root cause of this series of issues needs to be addressed because it involves misuses of mod's privileges.