Investigating Allegations of Fraud, Financial Misconduct, and Deceptive Practices at Landerholm Immigration, APC

This campaign, organized by impacted immigrant clients and community advocates, documents a troubling pattern of client allegations involving financial misconduct, deceptive practices, and serious professional failures connected to Attorney Otis Landerholm, founder of Landerholm Immigration, A.P.C. in Oakland, California.

Various former clients have reported experiences that appear consistent with improper fee handling, unfulfilled legal work, misleading promises, and abandonment during critical stages of immigration proceedings. These accounts raise urgent concerns about whether vulnerable immigrant families were misled, overcharged, or left without the representation they paid for.

Our initiative calls for full accountability, independent investigation, and restitution where appropriate, so that immigrant families who placed their trust—and often their life savings—into this law firm are protected and heard.

---

Allegations Against the Firm

Reports from numerous former clients describe a recurring pattern in which Landerholm Immigration, A.P.C. allegedly collects large flat fees upfront, performs little or no meaningful work, and later withdraws from cases without adequate notice, explanation, or refund. Many clients also report that the firm represented progress that did not actually occur, demanded additional payments for services they believed were already included in their contracts, or withheld case files and unearned funds when representation ended.

These accounts—if verified—raise serious concerns about potential violations of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, including:

• Rule 1.3 – Diligence: Failing to act competently or promptly in client matters.
• Rule 1.4 – Communication: Failing to keep clients reasonably informed or respond to inquiries.
• Rule 1.5 – Fees: Charging unreasonable or duplicative fees, or misrepresenting the nature of flat-fee agreements.
• Rule 1.15 – Safekeeping Property: Mishandling, delaying, or failing to return client funds or files.
• Rule 1.16(e): Failing to refund unearned fees or release client documents when representation ends.

Client allegations also reference conduct that, if substantiated, could implicate the California Business & Professions Code, including:

• §6106: Acts involving dishonesty or moral turpitude, including improper handling of client funds.
• §6068(m): Failing to respond promptly to client inquiries or deliver client property.

While these statements reflect client experiences and allegations—not established legal findings—they collectively indicate a systemic pattern that disproportionately harms immigrant families who may have limited legal literacy and rely heavily on their attorneys’ honesty and competence.

---

Case Example: Nelson Jimenez

Mr. Jimenez paid $22,500 to Landerholm Immigration, A.P.C. under a flat-fee agreement for representation in his U visa case and removal defense. The written contract stated that the fee was fixed and not subject to additional charges. Despite this, Mr. Jimenez later received demands for as much as $35,000 more, presented as an estimate for continued representation—an amount he believed contradicted the terms of the flat-fee agreement and raised concerns under Rule 1.5 (Fees).

From 2021 to 2025, Mr. Jimenez was assigned three different attorneys as firm employees repeatedly left their positions. When his last assigned attorney, Amanda, departed the firm, Mr. Jimenez reports that no new attorney was assigned and that Attorney Otis Landerholm did not file Form EOIR-28 (Notice of Appearance). As a result, when the Department of Homeland Security moved to recalendar his case, no opposition was filed. The immigration judge granted the motion, placing Mr. Jimenez back into active removal proceedings with no attorney of record—a situation he describes as devastating and dangerous.

Following this lapse, Mr. Jimenez states that both Attorney Otis Landerholm and Managing Attorney David Benham-Suk acknowledged the mistake. Mr. Jimenez has retained audio recordings and text messages in which the attorneys appear to apologize and take responsibility for the failure to act.

However, instead of correcting the error or resuming representation under the existing contract, Mr. Jimenez reports that the firm insisted he pay an additional estimated $35,000 to continue, despite the original flat-fee agreement. He further states that during these conversations he felt pressured and intimidated, including comments suggesting that “expediting deportation” was a possible outcome if he did not pay—statements that he interpreted as coercive.

After terminating the firm’s services, Mr. Jimenez requested:

• A refund of unearned fees,
• Itemized accounting records, and
• His complete case file.

To date, he reports that none of these have been provided, raising significant concerns under Rule 1.16(e) (Refunds and Return of Files) and §6068(m) (Obligation to respond to client requests and deliver client property).

While these allegations have not yet been adjudicated, the documented communications and unresolved financial issues reported by Mr. Jimenez—combined with similar patterns described by other former clients—raise serious questions about potential breach of contract, improper handling of client funds, and conduct that may warrant review by regulatory or investigative bodies.

---

Case Example: Mauricio Vélez Tobón

Mr. Mauricio Vélez Tobón paid over $8,000 to Landerholm Immigration in 2022. He was assured by attorney Flavio that his case was simple and would be handled efficiently. Over a year later, after repeated excuses and no progress, another attorney, Mitchell, admitted that the firm had overlooked critical legal elements and could not file his case.

Despite acknowledging their mistake, the firm refunded only $4,000—half of what was paid—and handed him a folder containing nothing more than photocopies of his own documents.
Mr. Vélez lost not only $4,000 but also an entire year of opportunity to file with USCIS before his eligibility window closed.

He states:

“They are punctual when taking your money, but vanish when you need them. I lost $4,000 and a year of my life because of their incompetence.”

---

Request for Investigation into Financial and Case Management Irregularities

A review of client accounts suggests a shared experience of systemic issues across multiple cases. Dozens of clients report similar patterns involving disputed fees, unreturned communication attempts, and unexpected case delays or termination. Common complaints include:

“I paid for the service, we talked, but they never answered again.”

“This attorney is defrauding his clients. He is currently under investigation for wire fraud and other violations. There will very likely be criminal charges and civil action against his law firm. If you have any information that you would like to report please reach out to Mr. Sanabria at sanabria1244@gmail.com”

Clients consistently describe a lack of transparency regarding billing and case management. Reports detail a systematic pattern of alleged financial irregularities and deceptive communication that, clients contend, appeared designed to encourage or extract additional payments. Clients report numerous cases displaying indicators of financial and ethical impropriety—including:

Refusal to provide clients with an itemized accounting or refund of fees that clients consider unearned.

Allegations of payments being requested under what clients later understood to be false pretenses.

Discrepancies in case progress reports provided by the firm and the actual status of the case.

---

Integrity of Public Representation and Digital Ethics

Documentation suggests that the founder of the firm, Mr. Landerholm, has engaged in practices that appear intended to manipulate the firm’s online reputation and conceal patterns of client complaints.

Publicly available evidence, secured and documented by the campaign, highlights specific instances of alleged improper self-promotion:

The documentation shows Mr. Landerholm has been documented posting comments on his own firm’s video content using alternate accounts. These comments, such as ‘Otis incredible and inspiring. Thanks for your leadership. It brings light.’ simulate positive client feedback to give the impression of competency and success. (Screenshots are available as evidence of this publicly visible activity.)

A sentiment and metadata analysis of his firm’s reviews suggests:

• Identical phrasing across multiple positive reviews,
• Suspiciously high posting frequency from low-credibility accounts,
• Inconsistencies between verified client experiences and online reputation scores.

These findings suggest that a significant portion of the firm’s public testimonials and endorsements may be manufactured or improperly managed. Clients contend that this activity constitutes another layer of misleading public representation intended to attract new clients under what they consider false or manipulated pretenses. This systematic enhancement of the firm’s perceived reputation compromises the ability of prospective clients to make informed decisions about legal representation.

---

Call to Action

We urge the State Bar Association and relevant regulatory bodies to immediately launch a comprehensive investigation into the financial and ethical practices documented here.

Join the Call for Accountability

If you have been a client of this firm and experienced similar issues regarding billing discrepancies, failure to receive case files, or threats related to your immigration status, we urge you to share your story immediately. Your evidence strengthens the case for official review. Send your story to shareyourlanderholmstory@yahoo.com