



We hired Attorney Steven Flaxman for a 30-minute advisory session costing $450, expecting meaningful guidance on a termination agreement related to serious habitability issues with our landlord. Given the urgency and complexity of our situation, we expected a careful and thorough review.
During the consultation, Mr. Flaxman stated that the landlord’s offer was “significant” and suggested that proceeding with the agreement could be a reasonable option. He emphasized that the decision was ultimately ours and said he would review the termination agreement once we received it. We made clear that the landlord was withholding funds until the agreement was signed and that we were displaced due to unresolved habitability violations.
When the agreement arrived, we sent it to him expecting a careful review. Instead, we received a very brief overview and were told the agreement was “standard.” Only later did we discover that a portion of the agreement referenced California law rather than Colorado (even though erroneous) an issue that could have been identified and explained during review. At the time the agreement was sent, Mr. Flaxman indicated he was in court, and we were asked to identify which provision we needed help understanding.
Had more time been taken, even briefly, the experience would have felt more thorough and individualized rather than rushed and transactional. Based on our later understanding of the agreement, signing it could have resulted in waiving important rights, particularly given the breadth of the release language.
What made this especially concerning is that Mr. Flaxman acknowledged during our consultation that, based on the evidence we provided, the landlord appeared to have breached the lease. Despite this, the guidance we received did not reflect the seriousness of that breach or fully address the risks embedded in the agreement.
Ultimately, we chose not to sign, which turned out to be the right decision for us. However, because we refused to sign an agreement that would have required releasing broad claims our landlord retaliated against us, we were left without housing or alternative assistance. Shortly afterward, we were locked out and charged additional fees, despite the fact that the underlying habitability issues caused our displacement.
For the cost and the stakes involved, we expected a far more careful, and protective review. Based on our experience, we cannot recommend this service.
Update:
After leaving an honest review of our experience, Mr. Flaxman contacted us and requested that we take the review down, stating that he would provide a full refund if we did so. We declined to remove the review.
Following our refusal, Mr. Flaxman stated that if we had settled, we would not have been evicted. That statement does not align with the facts of what occurred. The lockout happened two days after the agreement was presented, and there was no court order or writ of possession.
Our concern is not about hindsight outcomes, but about the quality of the legal guidance we received and how our concerns were addressed afterward.
Consultation happened 11/10/2025.
Agreement received by landlord and sent to Mr. Flaxman
11/17/2025.
Agreement advised we had to be out by 11/18/2025.
Illegal lockout occured
11/20/2025.