What is known about Shepelsky Law Group
The verified overall score for Shepelsky Law Group has not been published. Below is the available service information, source materials, and limitations of the study. Lack of rating does not mean poor quality of services.
Reviews and ratings · Sources · Methodology · JSON profile data
Platform ratings
The main rating is the average of available site cards, taking into account the number of ratings. Sources considered are marked below. Duplicate pages and known mirrors are counted once. The total number of ratings on sites is not equal to the number of unique clients. If complete cards are not available, a historical sample of individual scores is used.
Consider the date and boundaries of the sample. Old observations do not guarantee that the site's rating is the same today.
Facts and data boundaries
Company overview
- Direction
- US Immigration Services
- Service languages
- Russian, English, Ukrainian, Spanish, Polish
- Data Status
- New sources; restrictions are listed below
- Updating materials
- By source dates
Declared service areas
- Asylum
- Immigration Court and Deportation Cases
- Family immigration
- VAWA (Immigration for Victims of Assault)
- U visa and T visa
- Immigration through work and investment
- Green card – adjustment of status
- Waivers of denials
- Appeals & motions to reopen
- US Citizenship
- K-1 Fiancé/Fiancé Visa
- Divorce (including controversial and quick uncontested)
- Separation Agreements in Divorce
- Separate living (separation)
- Annulment of marriage
- Child support
- Alimony for spouse
- Division of property
- Guardianship
A company's self-description does not constitute independent verification of qualifications or results. Check on the official website.
Specialization and suitable clients
According to the official website, Shepelsky Law Group positions itself as an immigration and family law firm. In its immigration section, the site states that it "fights for immigrants and wins" and that two of the firm's attorneys are first-generation immigrants. This is an official statement by the company and not an independently verified fact.
Managing attorney Marina Shepelski describes immigration law as her “passion” on her website and attributes it to her personal experience with immigration. The site's family referral service is intended to help with divorces and family disputes in New York and New Jersey, including complex family law issues.
The firm may be relevant to people seeking assistance with immigration matters (asylum, family petitions, deportation, visas, green cards, citizenship) and/or family matters in New York and New Jersey. Specific applicability to your situation should be discussed during consultation; this guide does not provide legal advice.
Section sources (1)
Confirmed services and locations
The official website lists a wide range of immigration services: asylum, immigration court and removal, family immigration, VAWA, U visa and T visa, immigration through work and investment, green card (adjustment of status), waivers of denials, appeals and petitions for reconsideration, US citizenship, K-1 visa.
The family area of the site includes divorce (contested and quick uncontested), separation agreements, legal separation, annulment, child support, spousal support, property division, and guardianship. The site indicates that the family's affairs are in New York and New Jersey.
Geography of offices according to the website: Brooklyn, 2415 Avenue U, 2nd Floor - Suite 2R, Brooklyn, NY 11229; Manhattan, 321 Broadway, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10007 (by appointment only). Contact numbers and messengers are listed on the website; they are not reproduced here.
Section sources (1)
Russian language
The official website has an English / Russian language switch, that is, the Russian version is provided by the site itself. This confirms the presence of a Russian-language interface, but does not guarantee the language of a specific employee or specific consultation.
A historical snapshot of a lawyer's profile on Avvo (external directory) contained a line about languages: Russian, Ukrainian, Spanish, Polish. This snapshot is not a current endorsement and is for an attorney profile and not an aggregate firm rating. When applying, it is worth clarifying in what language a particular case will be conducted.
Section sources (2)
Working with the company
Fact from the source: the site offers to make an appointment (“Make An Appointment”), leave a message through a form, and also indicates WhatsApp and Viber messengers marked 24/7 and a phone number for calls from the USA. The Manhattan office accepts appointments only.
Questions to ask before starting work: who exactly will conduct the business; how communication will be organized and with what frequency; how to report changes in a case; what stages are expected and what documents are needed; how orders are issued and who responds to requests.
It is also worth clarifying the payment procedure and what is included in the initial consultation. The available reviews contain a message from the author about a paid consultation without a detailed analysis of the case and strategy (see the section on complaints); This is the author’s statement, not an established fact, and it is appropriate to take it into account as a reason to clarify the scope of the consultation in advance.
Section sources (2)
Fees and contract
Available sources do not contain confirmed prices, tariffs, fees or terms of the Shepelsky Law Group contract. The official website does not provide prices in the captured text.
One reviewer reports that he paid for the consultation (shepelsky-law-group-new-3). This is a single author’s message about the fact of payment for a consultation, and not a confirmation of a specific price or company policy.
Before signing the contract, it makes sense to clarify in writing: the cost and structure of the fee, what the payment covers, the procedure for additional payments, the terms of termination and return, as well as which of the lawyers will work on the case.
Section sources (2)
Platform reviews and limitations
Reviews in this package are obtained through indexed web captures rather than through direct access to the platforms: direct HTTP requests to Avvo and Birdeye returned 403. Capture dates do not equal the date the review was published and do not prove the current state of the platform.
The card on Birdeye (Google via Birdeye, Brooklyn office) showed conflicting values in different indexed versions: 3.9 with 15 reviews in the search capture and 3.7 with 3 reviews in the open capture. The firm's single current aggregate rating has not been verified and is therefore not presented here or used to compare firms.
A lawyer's profile on Avvo is a personal rating of the lawyer, not a firm aggregate; It cannot be transferred to the company. Google and its mirror Birdeye should not be confused as independent platforms.
The selected sample of reviews, with exceptions, does not constitute a comprehensive independent rating. The publication of the review is not equal to the date of the review.
Section sources (3)
Strengths mentioned in reviews
The available sample contains a positive author's message: the client notes the support and professionalism of the team throughout the process (shepelsky-law-group-new-2). This is an opinion piece, not an established fact.
The official website contains client stories, including a review of family immigration with praise for Marina Shepelsky and the team. These are company-owned materials and are provided as official statements and not as independent confirmation.
Section sources (2)
Specific complaints with date/URL and company responses
Communication complaint: The author reports poor communication and ignoring calls and messages after payment (shepelsky-law-group-new-1). The publication is listed as "3 weeks ago" (relative date, exact unknown), source - Birdeye/Google card, URL in sourceIds. Visible text is cut off; the ending is not restored. This is a statement of authorship and not stated infringement.
Consultation Complaint: The author states that he paid for a consultation, was denied a consultation as a non-primary applicant, and was given a weak case evaluation without a proposed strategy (shepelsky-law-group-new-3). The publication is listed as "3 weeks ago" in the indexed open capture (exact date unknown), source - the same Birdeye/Google card. Visible text is cut off. This is the author's statement.
There are no company responses to these reviews in the available sources of the package. Failure to respond in a takeover does not mean the company did not respond.
Section sources (1)
What clients say
The summaries below describe available accounts with attribution. A reviewer's statements are not established facts about the company.
Positive experience
Support and professionalism
The author of the review notes the support and professionalism of the team throughout the process.
Examples in the available selection: 1View evidence
The author of the review notes the support and professionalism of the team throughout the process.
Google via Birdeye ↗Date of publication: a month ago (relative; exact date unknown)What are they complaining about?
Communication after payment
The author reports poor communication and ignored calls and messages after payment; The text is cropped, this is the author's statement.
Examples in the available selection: 1View evidence
The author reports poor communication and ignored calls and messages after payment.
Google via Birdeye ↗Publication date: 3 weeks ago (relative; exact date unknown)Paid consultation without strategy analysis
The author reports consultation fees, denial of discussion as a non-primary applicant, and evaluation of a weak case without a proposed strategy; The text is cropped, this is the author's statement.
Examples in the available selection: 1View evidence
The author reports consultation fees, denial of discussion as a non-primary applicant, and evaluation of a weak case without a strategy.
Google via Birdeye ↗Publication date: 3 weeks ago in indexed open capture (exact date unknown)