Advertisment
Company Website:
The ‘About’ webpage of the company website stated:
“At Abbey Blue Legal Ltd, we specialize in Irish immigration services, offering over 50 years of combined expertise to help you achieve your dreams.”
And
“We assign a dedicated practitioner to guide you through every step, building a compelling, airtight case that highlights your strengths and potential.”
Under the heading “Talk to an Expert About Your Irish Immigration Needs” it stated:
“Our dedicated team of immigration experts is here to guide you through every step of your journey. Whether you need assistance with visas, citizenship, or business immigration, we provide tailored solutions to meet your unique needs.”
“Call to discuss your case.”
The ’Meet the Team’ webpage of the company website stated that the advertisers were experts, ‘in Irish immigration law and processes,’ and had, ‘an extensive wealth of legal knowledge and expertise.’
Social Media:
A LinkedIn profile stated:
‘I’m qualified immigration advisers.’ (sic)
The header of each webpage included the company name, an image with text stating “Certificate of Authorisaton TCSP”, accompanied by text stating “Licensed & regulated Trust and Company Service Provider (TCSP) in Ireland. Authorised by the Department of Justice.
In the footer on of each webpage (below the fold) a disclaimer stated “Abbey Blue Legal Ltd is an administrative consultancy specialising in Irish Immigration. We are not solicitors.”
Complaint
The complainant objected to the advertising as they believed it implied that the service provided was offered by solicitors or qualified legal practitioners.
While the complainant noted that there was a disclaimer at the bottom of the page stating they were not solicitors, they considered that the content was written with the intention to give the impression the service was provided by a legal practitioner.
They also considered that the use of the word ‘legal’ in the company’s name implied the service was provided by a legal firm.
Response
The advertisers stated that they were an Irish company specialising in administrative immigration advisory services and corporate services. They said that they were not a law firm, did not employ solicitors, nor did they undertake any form of reserved legal activity or court representation. They said that their work was confined strictly to administrative guidance, document support, and immigration application preparation for clients engaging with the Department of Justice and related authorities. They said that these services were lawful, widely practiced in Ireland, and did not require solicitor status.
They said that they fully understood the distinction between immigration advisory work and legal representation, and that they operated firmly and consistently within the correct boundaries.
In regard to their LinkedIn profiles, the advertisers said that titles such as “Immigration Specialist,” “Immigration Practitioner,” and “Immigration Director” referred solely to internal administrative casework roles, did not imply solicitor or barrister status and that they did not use any protected or restricted professional titles such as ‘solicitor’, ‘attorney’, ‘barrister’, or ‘law firm’ in any context. They said that they remained committed to ensuring all titles used were transparent, accurate and compliant.
They said that although immigration advisory work was not a regulated profession in Ireland, they maintained a strong compliance culture. They said that they were a licensed Trust and Company Service Provider (TCSP) authorised by the Department of Justice, demonstrating their adherence to:
• AML requirements,
• Fit and proper standards, and
• High operational and documentation standards.
They said that this licensing primarily related to their company formations and corporate services division but reflected their overall commitment to regulated best practices. They also said that they maintained full business insurance relevant to their activities.
To ensure that they operated with full clarity and within legal boundaries, they said that they have previously engaged with the Law Society of Ireland to review both their website, and the nature of the services they provide. They were advised that their activities did not constitute reserved legal work, that their website did not breach any aspect of the Solicitors Acts, that the “Legal” was not a restricted or sensitive term and was permissible in a company name, and that no concerns were raised regarding their advertising or representation of their services. They said that they continued to operate in line with the guidance received.
The advertisers said that the word “Legal” in their trading name was descriptive of the administrative processes they assisted with and did not imply, state, or suggest that they were a firm of solicitors.
In order to eliminate any potential misunderstanding, they said that their website clearly displayed the following statement:
“Abbey Blue Legal Ltd is not a firm of solicitors.”
They said that this disclaimer was already prominent and included in client materials, and they were willing to make it even more visible should the ASA consider that helpful.
The advertisers said that they took their obligations under the ASA Code seriously and maintained a strong commitment to accuracy, transparency, and responsible advertising and that if the Authority considered that any specific wording, placement, or presentation on their website could be improved for clarity, they were fully open to making amendments immediately as their goal was always to ensure that consumers were fully informed and not misled in any way.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Council noted that the advertising had made reference to terms that were associated with legal advice, such as ‘legal’ in the company name, and ‘building a compelling, airtight case’, and ‘discuss your case’. The Council considered that such terms could imply that legal advice was being offered. The Council also noted each webpage referred to the company as being “Authorised by the Department of Justice.” While the Council noted that a disclaimer had been included at the bottom of the ‘About’ webpage, they considered that the font size was small had not been linked to clarify the claim and lacked prominence. The Council also noted that, as the service provided was immigration service, it was likely that many of the advertisers’ clients would not be native English speakers and, therefore, may be misled by the use of words like ‘legal’ and ‘case’.
The Council considered that the overall impression of the advertising was likely to mislead consumers, and the advertisement was, therefore, in breach of Sections, 4.1 and 4.4 of the Code.
Action Required
The advertisement should not appear in its current form again.
The Council considered that the disclaimer should be given greater prominence and should appear in close proximity to the company name.
