richardtmherman@gmail.com

+1-216-696-6170

Success Stories
Book Consultation

Hilton, ICE, and Minneapolis-Area Hotels: What We Know, What It Means, and How “Boycott ICE” Campaigns Are Reshaping Corporate Behavior

By Richard T. Herman

deportation defense, Immigration Articles, 26 min read

Table of Contents

Quick Answer

DHS/ICE allege that a Hilton-branded Hampton Inn near Minneapolis canceled government hotel reservations tied to immigration enforcement operations, including the hilton hotel ice reservation cancellation, triggering a fast-moving national controversy that sits inside a broader “Boycott ICE” ecosystem—where companies are pressured either for cooperating with ICE (privacy/data sharing, detention logistics) or for refusing ICE (service denials, alleged discrimination, operational disruption). For immigrants and families, the practical significance is not the brand drama—it is the enforcement reality: surges change the risk environment, increase encounters, and can produce collateral arrests and rapid removals.

Primary reporting: CNN’s report on the Hilton / Minneapolis-area reservation cancellations, plus AP’s coverage and Business Insider’s summary of the allegations and franchise response.

Bottom Line

  • The Minneapolis-area incident is being framed as a service/refusal controversy (hotel allegedly canceling DHS/ICE reservations), while many earlier hotel controversies were framed as cooperation/complicity controversies (hotels allegedly enabling ICE through guest-list sharing or hotel-based holding).

  • Hilton and multiple reports emphasize the key structural point: many Hilton-branded hotels are independently owned and operated franchises, meaning corporate brand policy and property-level conduct can diverge quickly.

  • The “Boycott ICE” universe increasingly targets vendors and logistics providers (retail, airlines, hotels, data, private contractors). The pressure is not only about politics—it is about money, reputational risk, and operational friction.

  • If you are an immigrant, a visa holder, or a family member in a surge environment, your best defense is risk planning: know your exposure points and prepare before any USCIS, ICE, or court encounter.

hilton hotel ice reservation cancellation

Fast Facts (At-a-Glance)

Topic What to Know
Where Minneapolis-area / Lakeville, Minnesota (per reporting)
What DHS alleges Reservation cancellations tied to DHS/ICE personnel
Why Hilton says it matters Property is independently owned/operated; conduct allegedly inconsistent with brand standards
Why it matters beyond hotels Hotels are enforcement logistics; controversies become national instantly
What “Boycott ICE” does Targets companies viewed as supporting enforcement (or now, obstructing it)
What immigrants should do Plan for enforcement volatility; do not “wing it” at appointments or travel

hotels refusing ICE agents ICE enforcement surge hotels boycott ICE hotels corporate boycott ICE vendors

What Happened (Minneapolis / Lakeville Timeline)

Multiple reports describe DHS/ICE alleging that a Hilton-branded Hampton Inn in the Minneapolis area canceled reservations tied to immigration enforcement personnel, with DHS presenting screenshots and framing the issue as inappropriate interference with law enforcement lodging.

Start here for the core timeline:

Why the franchise issue is central (and why readers misunderstand it)

Most major hotel brands are not “one company runs every building.” The brand sets standards; the owner/operator runs day-to-day decisions. That structure creates three predictable outcomes in controversies like this:

  1. The headline names the brand (because that is what consumers recognize).

  2. The legal and operational responsibility is property-level (often an owner/operator or management company).

  3. The reputational damage spreads faster than the facts (especially in surge operations).

This is the same structural dynamic that powered earlier hotel/ICE controversies—just with the polarity reversed (refusal instead of cooperation).

Why Hotels Matter to ICE Operations (and Why This Story Traveled Nationally)

Hotels are not a neutral backdrop during enforcement surges. They can function as:

1) Logistics infrastructure

Surges require rapid staffing shifts, staging, and travel. Hotels become short-notice operational anchors—especially near airports, courthouses, and high-target zones.

2) “Visibility points” for activists and the public

Activism often looks for tangible, nameable corporate chokepoints: a brand, a property, a vendor contract. Hotels are easy to identify and easy to pressure.

3) Community flashpoints

Even when a hotel is not “doing enforcement,” its perceived role can trigger protests, calls for boycotts, or counter-boycotts.

If you are tracking how enforcement surges play out in local communities (including Ohio), see HLG’s broader enforcement context:

what happens during ICE enforcement surges does ICE wait at USCIS interviews should I go to my USCIS interview during enforcement surge

The “Boycott ICE” Framework (HLG Deep Dive)

To understand the Hilton controversy, you need the two-track boycott logic:

Track A: Boycotts targeting alleged “ICE cooperation” (privacy, data, logistics)

Historically, a major hotel boycott narrative has been: “This company helped ICE by sharing data or enabling enforcement.”

The canonical example is the Motel 6 guest-list controversy in Washington, where the state Attorney General described widespread sharing of guest registry information with ICE without requiring a warrant:

This “cooperation model” is what fueled many boycott campaigns: if a business is seen as facilitating enforcement, it becomes a target.

HLG’s boycott/corporate-complicity coverage builds on this same model:

Track B: Boycotts (and counter-boycotts) targeting refusal to serve ICE

The Hilton dispute flips the script. Here, DHS is effectively alleging “refusal” or obstruction, and critics frame it as anti-law-enforcement discrimination. That creates:

  • a reputational crisis for the brand, even if franchise-owned; and

  • a political mobilization moment (boycott calls and counter-boycott calls).

This is why the story traveled quickly—because it hits both boycott tracks at once:

  • activists already see hotels as pressure points; and

  • enforcement supporters see refusal as unacceptable.

Legal/Policy Analysis: Can a Hotel Refuse DHS/ICE Reservations?

This question is often asked incorrectly. The real question is usually one of these:

1) Is the refusal discriminatory under public-accommodation laws?

Hotels generally cannot refuse service based on protected classes (race, national origin, religion, etc.). Being a DHS/ICE employee is not, by itself, a protected class—but facts matter, including whether the refusal is a proxy for a protected characteristic or selectively enforced.

2) Is this a contract/procurement dispute?

If government travel was booked under government rates or specific channels, the legal dispute may look more like:

  • cancellation policy enforcement,

  • procurement compliance,

  • franchise agreement standards, or

  • tort/reputational claims depending on statements made.

3) Is it a franchise compliance crisis?

Brands can impose standards on franchisees. “Independently operated” does not mean “no brand control”—it means the control tends to be contractual and standards-based, not direct daily management.

Practical takeaway: these incidents often become policy + PR + contract disputes faster than they become courtroom litigation.

Why DHS Publicly Named Hilton — and Why That Is Unusual

Federal agencies rarely single out private companies by name in real time. When they do, it is almost never accidental.

In the Minneapolis-area hotel dispute, DHS did not quietly resolve the issue through procurement channels or private correspondence. Instead, it went public immediately, attaching the Hilton brand to the controversy and amplifying it nationally through media coverage.

This type of escalation usually signals one or more of the following:

1. Deterrence Signaling to Other Vendors

By publicly naming a major hotel brand, DHS sends a message beyond one property in Minnesota. The message is not just about Hilton—it is about all vendors who may interact with immigration enforcement during surge operations.

The signal is simple:
Refusals, cancellations, or disruptions tied to enforcement operations may trigger public consequences.

This is a classic federal deterrence tactic, particularly during politically sensitive enforcement periods.

2. Narrative Control During an Enforcement Surge

When immigration enforcement ramps up, DHS is acutely aware of public perception. During surges, advocacy groups, local officials, and media outlets move quickly to shape the narrative.

By going public first, DHS attempts to:

  • frame the story as operational interference rather than protest,

  • discourage similar actions by other hotels, and

  • prevent a broader boycott narrative from gaining early traction.

This mirrors prior DHS behavior during other high-profile enforcement controversies.

3. Precedent Setting for Franchise Operators

Because many branded hotels are independently owned and operated, DHS likely understands that franchise-level decisions are the weakest point in enforcement logistics.

Publicly naming Hilton—despite its franchise structure—creates pressure up the chain:

  • on brand compliance teams,

  • on franchise agreements,

  • and on operators who may otherwise act independently.

In short, this was not just a reaction. It was a warning shot.

How Hotel Controversies Predict ICE Enforcement Behavior on the Ground

Hotel disputes involving ICE are not isolated PR incidents. Historically, they are early indicators of how enforcement patterns may shift next.

At Herman Legal Group, we have observed a consistent pattern across multiple enforcement cycles:

When Enforcement Logistics Become Contested, ICE Adapts Quickly

When traditional logistics—such as centralized hotel lodging—become unstable or controversial, enforcement agencies do not pause operations. Instead, they adjust tactics.

Common downstream effects include:

1. More Decentralized Operations

Rather than relying on large, visible staging locations, enforcement activity becomes more dispersed and less predictable.

This often results in:

  • smaller field teams,

  • less advance visibility, and

  • fewer identifiable enforcement hubs.

2. Increased Surprise Encounters

As logistics decentralize, enforcement increasingly occurs through:

  • routine traffic stops,

  • unexpected workplace encounters, and

  • collateral arrests unrelated to the original target.

For immigrants with prior orders, overstays, or unresolved issues, this raises encounter risk substantially.

3. Heightened Risk at “Routine” Government Touchpoints

When enforcement operations face friction elsewhere, agencies rely more heavily on existing points of contact, including:

  • USCIS interviews,

  • ICE check-ins,

  • biometrics appointments, and

  • immigration court appearances.

This is why HLG consistently warns against treating any government appointment as “routine” during surge periods.

For related guidance, see:

HLG Insight

When enforcement logistics become politically or operationally unstable, individual risk increases—not decreases.

Immigrants, visa holders, and mixed-status families should assume:

  • less predictability,

  • faster decision-making by officers, and

  • fewer second chances to correct mistakes.

This is precisely when advance legal screening matters most.

If you are unsure about your risk profile—or whether to attend an upcoming appointment—HLG strongly recommends speaking with an immigration attorney before proceeding:

Why This Matters to Immigrants (Not Just to ICE)

If enforcement is surging in a region, immigrants should assume:

  • more law-enforcement visibility,

  • more administrative friction,

  • more opportunistic arrests (especially for people with old orders, old contacts, or inconsistent records), and

  • faster handoffs between agencies.

HLG’s consistent position: plan before you appear. Do not treat an interview, a check-in, or travel as routine if your history is not clean.

If you need a consultation because you are worried about enforcement risk (USCIS, ICE, or immigration court), use HLG’s scheduling page:

Ohio Local SEO (Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati, Dayton — and Nationwide)

HLG is Ohio-rooted and national in scope. We routinely advise and represent clients in:

  • Cleveland immigration matters

  • Columbus immigration enforcement risk

  • Akron immigration cases

  • Cincinnati ICE and removal defense

  • Dayton immigration strategy

But enforcement risk is not “local-only.” If you are anywhere in the U.S. and facing a surge environment, a high-risk appointment, or a complicated history, HLG can advise nationwide:

Key Takeaways

What we can say with confidence

  • DHS publicly alleged the cancellation of lodging reservations tied to DHS/ICE personnel at a Hilton-branded property.

  • Hilton and multiple outlets emphasize the franchise distinction: the property is described as independently owned/operated.

  • The incident sits within a broader boycott ecosystem that targets vendors for either cooperating with or refusing ICE.

What readers should do if enforcement is increasing in their area

  • Do not attend appointments “blind.”

  • Do not travel if your status or history is uncertain.

  • Get a risk screen from an immigration attorney who understands enforcement realities.

Frequently Asked Questions: Hilton, ICE, and Hotel Boycotts (2026)

Did Hilton hotels really cancel ICE or DHS reservations in Minnesota?

According to DHS and multiple news reports, a Hilton-branded Hampton Inn near Minneapolis canceled hotel reservations associated with ICE personnel during an immigration enforcement surge. Hilton later stated that the property is independently owned and operated and that the conduct described was inconsistent with Hilton’s corporate policies. The hotel reportedly apologized and addressed the situation after it became public.

Was this decision made by Hilton corporate or by a franchise hotel?

Public reporting indicates the hotel involved was a franchise location, not a Hilton-owned property. This distinction is critical because many major hotel brands license their name and standards to independent owners who control day-to-day operations, including reservations and guest communications. Corporate brands may impose standards after the fact, but they often do not make individual booking decisions.

Why did DHS publicly name Hilton instead of resolving this quietly?

Federal agencies rarely escalate vendor disputes publicly unless they are sending a broader signal. Public naming can serve as deterrence, narrative control during an enforcement surge, and a warning to other vendors that refusals or disruptions tied to enforcement may trigger consequences. This type of escalation is unusual and often intentional.

Is it legal for a hotel to refuse service to ICE or DHS agents?

The legality depends on how and why the refusal occurs. Hotels are public accommodations and generally cannot discriminate based on protected characteristics, but being a federal employee is not itself a protected class. Refusals can still raise legal issues involving contracts, franchise agreements, procurement rules, or selective enforcement depending on the facts.

Does this mean hotels are allowed to “boycott ICE”?

There is no single legal rule that permits or prohibits a “boycott of ICE” by private companies. Each situation turns on contractual obligations, public-accommodation laws, and brand-franchise rules. Many companies face pressure from both sides—activists calling for disengagement and government agencies demanding cooperation.

How does this incident relate to past hotel controversies involving ICE?

Earlier controversies often focused on hotels allegedly cooperating too closely with ICE, such as sharing guest information or housing detainees. Those cases triggered boycotts claiming complicity in enforcement. The Minneapolis incident is notable because it flips the narrative by alleging refusal rather than cooperation, yet still produced a national backlash.

Are hotel boycotts an effective way to influence immigration enforcement?

Boycotts typically aim to influence corporate behavior rather than enforcement policy directly. They can create reputational and financial pressure that causes companies to reassess vendor relationships, data practices, or contracts. Enforcement agencies, however, usually adapt operationally rather than reduce enforcement activity.

Does this hotel controversy affect immigrants or visa holders directly?

Not directly, but it can affect them indirectly. When enforcement logistics become unstable or politically contested, agencies often shift tactics, increasing unpredictability and reliance on routine touchpoints such as USCIS interviews, ICE check-ins, and court appearances. This can raise encounter risk for individuals with unresolved immigration issues.

Should immigrants be more cautious right now because of this incident?

During enforcement surges, caution is always advisable. Individuals with pending cases, prior removal orders, overstays, or old arrests should avoid treating any government appointment or travel as routine. A legal risk assessment before attending appointments can prevent irreversible consequences.

Can ICE arrest someone at a USCIS interview or routine appointment?

Yes. A pending application or interview does not provide immunity from enforcement. ICE has legal authority to arrest individuals at or near government buildings if there is a valid basis to do so, which is why advance legal screening is critical in surge environments.

What should I do if I’m worried about enforcement risk right now?

Start by understanding your full immigration history, including prior entries, overstays, orders, and arrests. Before attending any USCIS, ICE, or court appointment, speak with an immigration attorney who understands enforcement dynamics, not just form filing. Early advice can determine whether to proceed, delay, or take protective steps.

For related guidance:

ICE Vendors (Last 12 Months)

Organized by Service / Product Category
(Contract values listed where publicly available)

A. Surveillance, Analytics & Enforcement Software

Palantir Technologies

Pen-Link, Ltd.

B. Private Detention Operators & Facility Management

The GEO Group, Inc.

CoreCivic, Inc.

C. Alternatives to Detention (ATD) & Electronic Monitoring

BI Incorporated (GEO subsidiary)

D. Transportation, Removal & Logistics Services

MVM, Inc.

E. IT Systems, Engineering & Program Support

ITC Federal, LLC

Inserso Corporation

Booz Allen Hamilton

F. Communications, Devices & Facility Technology

Talton Communications

Motorola Solutions

Axon Enterprise

G. Facilities, Temporary Housing & Operational Support

Deployed Resources, LLC

Price Modern LLC

H. Staffing, Guard & Detention Compliance Vendors (IDIQ Pool)

(Often IDIQ awards with task-order-level funding)

I. Hotels, Lodging & Hospitality Providers

ICE regularly uses hotels and extended-stay lodging for agents, detainee overflow, transportation staging, and short-term housing. This often occurs via direct contracts, GSA schedules, or franchise-level agreements.

Marriott International (including Courtyard, Residence Inn, Fairfield Inn brands)

Hilton (including Hampton Inn, DoubleTree, Embassy Suites – franchise dependent)

Extended Stay America

Best Western Hotels & Resorts

Important note :
Hotel brands are often not the direct contracting party; contracts may be with individual franchise owners or management companies.

J. Food Services, Catering & Detainee Meals

ICE detention and transport operations rely heavily on large national food service contractors.

Aramark Correctional Services

Trinity Services Group

Sodexo Government Services

K. Retail, Commissary & Consumer Goods Brands (Detention Context)

These companies often appear through subcontracts or commissary programs, not always as direct ICE awardees.

Keefe Group / TKC Holdings

Union Supply Group

L. Transportation, Airlines & Travel Management

ICE removals and transport involve charter airlines and federal travel vendors.

CSI Aviation

Classic Air Charter / Swift Air (historical & successor arrangements)

CWTSatoTravel

M. National Consumer & Technology Brands

These companies are not ICE enforcement vendors, but may appear in ICE-related contexts such as detainee communications, content moderation, or government account usage.

Spotify

  • Context: Reported use in detention facilities or by contractors via tablets or devices

  • Status: No known direct ICE enforcement contract

  • https://www.spotify.com

Google / Alphabet

Amazon (AWS)

N. Apparel, Uniforms & Equipment Suppliers

Galls, LLC

Safariland Group

NOTE:

This list includes companies that have received direct ICE contracts, participated as prime or sub-contractors, or provided goods and services used in ICE operations during the last 12 months, based on publicly available federal procurement data and agency disclosures.

How to Protest or Boycott Companies That Support or Do Business With ICE (A Practical, Lawful Guide)

Public protests and consumer boycotts related to immigration enforcement are a form of lawful civic expression when conducted responsibly. If you choose to protest or boycott companies you believe are supporting or doing business with ICE, the steps below outline effective, legal, and low-risk ways to do so.

Step 1: Confirm the Facts Before Taking Action

Before protesting or calling for a boycott, verify:

  • whether the company actually has a relationship with ICE or DHS,

  • whether the activity involves contracts, data sharing, logistics, or services, and

  • whether the conduct is current or based on outdated reporting.

Misidentifying a company or relying on inaccurate claims can undermine credibility and expose individuals or organizations to legal risk.

HLG routinely emphasizes fact-checking because many ICE-related controversies involve franchise operators, contractors, or third-party vendors, not corporate headquarters.

Step 2: Understand the Company’s Structure

Many large brands operate through:

  • independent franchise owners,

  • regional operators,

  • subcontractors, or

  • third-party service providers.

A boycott aimed at a brand may not directly affect the entity responsible for the conduct in question. Understanding whether a decision was made at the corporate, franchise, or vendor level helps ensure your response is proportionate and accurate.

This distinction is central to many ICE-related controversies involving hotels, retailers, and technology companies.

Step 3: Choose Lawful, Low-Risk Forms of Protest

Common lawful protest and boycott methods include:

  • choosing not to purchase goods or services from a company,

  • publicly stating consumer preferences through reviews or statements that are factual and non-defamatory,

  • contacting companies directly to request policy changes,

  • supporting advocacy organizations through lawful donations, and

  • peaceful, permitted demonstrations in public spaces.

Avoid conduct that could be construed as harassment, threats, property damage, or interference with employees or customers.

Step 4: Avoid Actions That Create Legal Exposure

Even well-intentioned protest activity can create risk if it crosses legal boundaries. Avoid:

  • blocking entrances or exits,

  • trespassing on private property,

  • targeting individual employees rather than corporate decision-makers,

  • making false statements presented as fact, or

  • encouraging others to engage in unlawful behavior.

These actions can result in criminal charges or civil liability and may distract from the underlying message.

Step 5: Separate Corporate Accountability From Immigration Status

For immigrants, visa holders, and mixed-status families, it is especially important to separate protest activity from immigration exposure.

Participation in protests does not automatically affect immigration status, but:

  • arrests,

  • citations,

  • or documented encounters with law enforcement
    can have immigration consequences for non-citizens.

Individuals with pending cases, prior removal orders, or unresolved immigration issues should seek legal advice before participating in public demonstrations.

HLG y advises clients to prioritize personal safety and immigration stability over public visibility.

Step 6: Consider Indirect Advocacy Options

If direct protest feels risky, alternatives include:

  • writing op-eds or letters to editors,

  • supporting litigation or policy advocacy through established organizations,

  • engaging in shareholder or consumer feedback channels, and

  • amplifying verified reporting rather than organizing demonstrations.

These methods often carry lower personal risk while still influencing corporate behavior.

Step 7: Know When to Seek Legal Advice

If you are unsure whether protest or boycott activity could affect:

  • your immigration status,

  • a pending application,

  • a future travel plan, or

  • an upcoming USCIS, ICE, or court appointment,

consulting an immigration attorney beforehand is a prudent step.

HLG  advises individuals who want to engage in civic activity while minimizing unintended immigration consequences.

For individualized guidance:

Why This Matters

Corporate boycotts related to ICE and immigration enforcement have become more visible and more complex. Understanding how to engage lawfully and strategically protects both the message and the people behind it.

This guidance is informational and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and risks vary by location and individual circumstances.

How can Herman Legal Group help in situations like this?

Herman Legal Group focuses on risk assessment, enforcement awareness, and strategic decision-making, not just paperwork. HLG represents clients in Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati, Dayton, and nationwide, helping individuals and families navigate heightened enforcement periods safely.

To speak with an attorney:

Resource Directory: Hilton, ICE, Hotel Boycotts & Immigration Enforcement (2026)

Federal Agencies & Official Government Sources

These agencies shape immigration enforcement operations, public statements, and enforcement authority:

  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
    https://www.dhs.gov
    Oversees immigration enforcement agencies and sets national enforcement priorities.

  • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
    https://www.ice.gov
    Conducts immigration enforcement, detention, removals, and compliance operations.

  • U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
    https://www.uscis.gov
    Handles immigration benefits, interviews, biometrics, and applications—often overlapping with enforcement risk.

  • Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
    https://www.justice.gov/eoir
    Manages immigration courts and removal proceedings.

Major News & Investigative Reporting (Primary Sources)

These outlets provide original reporting and contemporaneous documentation of the Hilton / ICE controversy and related enforcement developments:

Corporate Accountability & Boycott Context

These resources provide background on corporate boycotts, vendor pressure campaigns, and prior ICE-related controversies:

Herman Legal Group (HLG) – In-Depth Legal Analysis & Guidance

These HLG resources provide legal context, enforcement risk analysis, and practical guidance related to ICE activity, corporate boycotts, and immigration enforcement:

Corporate Boycotts & ICE

Enforcement Risk & Individual Protection

Legal Help & Consultations

For individuals concerned about enforcement risk, travel, interviews, or prior immigration history:

HLG represents clients in Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati, Dayton, and across the United States, focusing on enforcement-aware strategy, removal defense, and risk management.

Written By Richard Herman
Founder
Richard Herman is a nationally recognizeis immigration attorney, Herman Legal Group began in Cleveland, Ohio, and has grown into a trusted law firm serving immigrants across the United States and beyond. With over 30 years of legal excellence, we built a firm rooted in compassion, cultural understanding, and unwavering dedication to your American dream.
Attorney Profile
Linkedin

Recent Resource Articles

Attorney Richard Herman shares his wealth of knowledge through our free blog.

USCIS increased scrutiny of VAWA cases

USCIS Increased Scrutiny of VAWA Cases: Why USCIS Says Fraud Is Rising, What the 2025 Memo Means, and How to Protect a Legitimate Claim

USCIS has confirmed increased scrutiny of VAWA self-petitions following dramatic
  • 430
  • 20 min
hilton hotel ice reservation cancellation

Hilton, ICE, and Minneapolis-Area Hotels: What We Know, What It Means, and How “Boycott ICE” Campaigns Are Reshaping Corporate Behavior

This in-depth legal analysis examines DHS allegations that a Hilton-branded
  • 430
  • 20 min
Travel while immigration case is pending

Is It Safe to Travel While Your Immigration Case Is Pending? What CBP Is Doing in 2026

Traveling internationally while an immigration case is pending has become
  • 430
  • 20 min
View All

Book Your Consultation

Honest Advice. Multilingual Team. Decades of Experience. Get the Clarity and Support you Deserve.
Schedule Now

Contact us

Head Office OH

408 West Saint Clair Avenue, Suite 230 Cleveland, OH 44113

Phone Number

+1-216-696-6170

Email Address

richardtmherman@gmail.com

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Services

Useful Links

Office

CLEVELAND (HEADQUARTER)

Herman Legal Group, LLC.

408 West Saint Clair Avenue,
Suite 230 Cleveland, OH 44113

Get direction on the map
+1-216-696-6170
richardtmherman@gmail.com

Facebook Twitter Linkedin-in

© Copyright 2025, HLG, LLC. All Rights Reserved