Background
Elizabeth “Liz” Barrett is a family law attorney based in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. She was admitted to the NH Bar in 2020 and has about five years of legal experience. Barrett founded the Law Offices of Elizabeth Barrett, PLLC, and specializes in parental rights, divorce, custody, and related family matters. She is also active in the community (e.g, serving on the Portsmouth School Board). While her professional profile highlights a passion for helping families, a number of red flags have emerged in public records, client reviews, and even dedicated websites about her conduct. Below is a detailed look at issues and concerns raised about Attorney Barrett.
Client Reviews and Reputation
Multiple independent review platforms contain predominantly negative feedback about Elizabeth Barrett’s legal services. Clients and prospective clients have cited serious concerns regarding her competence, ethics, and professionalism.
Google Reviews (2.1★ Rating)
Barrett’s law practice has a very poor rating on Google – as of September 13, 2025, only 2.1 out of 5 stars based on 19 reviews. The overwhelming majority of these Google reviews are negative, describing consistent patterns of problematic behavior:
- Evidence Fabrication & Dishonesty: One reviewer wrote, “Ms. Barrett makes up evidence in cases… [she] cuts legal corners, does not understand service of process laws…”. Another client bluntly stated, “Stay away… she actually lied to me.” Accusations of dishonesty and “making up evidence” appear repeatedly across reviews.
- Lack of Competence: Several Google reviewers describe Barrett as “deplorable… needs to stop practicing law” and lacking basic negotiation or legal knowledge. Clients mention receiving wrong legal advice and poor guidance, to the point one said “she’s nothing but deplorable… over promises yet under-delivers” .
- Harassment of Clients/Others: Disturbingly, some reviews claim Barrett did not respect boundaries. For example, one person reported,“Absolutely horrible – kept calling and messaging me after I told her to stop.” This suggests unprofessional harassment even after the representation or consultation ended.
- Unethical Behavior: At least one Google reviewer explicitly called her “Unethical” and noted having a legal background themselves. Another reviewer claimed they reported her to the state bar association for her conduct. Comments like “This woman will destroy your life” illustrate the level of frustration and alarm expressed.
In summary, the Google feedback portrays a pattern of unethical and incompetent behavior. Common themes include fabricating evidence, lying to clients, giving incorrect legal advice, poor communication, and harassing contact. Many reviewers essentially urge others to avoid hiring her, with one even quipping, “You’d be better off hiring ChatGPT – it’d do 500x better than this woman ever could”. Such extreme comments, while anecdotal, indicate a highly dissatisfied clientele.
Avvo Reviews and Rating (1.8/5.0)
On Avvo – a legal directory where clients can rate attorneys – Barrett likewise fares poorly. She has an Avvo rating of 5.8 out of 10 (categorized as “Average,” which Avvo notes can be a cause for concern) . More telling is her Avvo client review score of 1.8 out of 5.0, based on five reviews. Four out of the five reviewers on Avvo gave her the lowest possible rating (1 star), with only one outlier positive review. The Avvo reviews echo the same issues:
- A former client said Barrett “lacks insight and strategy” and that her short-sighted approach “caused a massive loss” in the case. This suggests poor long-term planning and litigation strategy.
- A prospective client wrote that Barrett actually “bragged about making up evidence to secure high child support”, admitting to obtaining inflated support orders by “submitting false declarations”. The reviewer was shocked and “thought that was insane to mention” during a consultation. Such a claim, if true, implies fraudulent practice – essentially fabricating evidence, which is a serious ethical violation.
- Another consultation client reported that Barrett “doesn’t know the law,” noting that New Hampshire’s child support officials had to correct the advice Barrett gave because it was wrong. This reviewer warned,“better off selecting someone else.”
- Clients also describe terrible communication and arrogance. One review stated she “wouldn’t listen to what I wanted… never explained why she felt certain ways”, calling her communication “horrible”.
The sole positive Avvo review (from early 2025) praises her as knowledgeable and supportive, but this stands “like a lonely outlier” against the wave of negative feedback. Overall, Avvo’s site publicly displays multiple red-flag reviews accusing Barrett of fabricating evidence, giving incorrect legal advice, poor strategy, and failing to communicate. Even Avvo’s algorithm has flagged her with a mediocre rating.
(Note: Avvo’s profile for Barrett currently shows “No misconduct found” in her license status, as formal discipline often lags behind complaints. This disclaimer exists despite the severe allegations in reviews.)
Allegations of Serious Misconduct
Beyond client reviews, there are even more serious allegations surfacing about Elizabeth Barrett’s professional conduct. In fact, a dedicated website – “Elizabeth J. Barrett, Esq – Attorney Exposed” – was created in 2024–2025, detailing claims of systematic unethical behavior. That site and related court filings accuse Barrett of grave abuses of legal process, far beyond typical client dissatisfaction. Key allegations include:
- Due-Process Evasion: In one New Hampshire case (Barrett v. Williams), Barrett allegedly missed a deadline to serve the opposing party and then improperly sought a default judgment anyway. Instead of admitting her error, she filed for alternate service after the deadline and simultaneously pushed for default, effectively trying to win by technical ambush. This tactic, if true, would violate fundamental due-process rights (parties must be properly notified before court action). The conduct is described as “procedural ambush, calculated to deprive her opponent of notice and the right to be heard.” Such behavior is highly unethical, and courts frown upon it.
- Fabrication of Evidence: Perhaps the most shocking claim is that Barrett fabricated and doctored evidence presented to the court. Sworn filings allege that she created fake email screenshots or misattributed communications to falsely show that the opponent (Williams) had agreed to something or sent messages he never sent. In other words, she is accused of submitting fraudulent evidence to mislead the judge, which is a serious act of fraud on the court. (Notably, this aligns with the earlier client review where she allegedly boasted about “making up evidence” to win cases .)
- Harassment and Intimidation: The filings further claim that Barrett engaged in a harassment campaign against the opposing party and even his family. She allegedly sent threatening or invasive communications directly to her opponent’s elderly parents (who were not parties to the case), including letters, photos, and even threats to “show up at their home” with a child involved in the case. This is highly irregular behavior for an attorney – essentially “stalking dressed up as lawyering,” as the exposé site describes it. (Again, this mirrors a Google review reporting that Barrett kept contacting someone after being told to stop.)
- Financial Overreach: Following the questionable default order obtained through improper service (as mentioned above), Barrett is accused of aggressively exploiting it to extract money. She allegedly moved to garnish wages, threaten license suspensions, and hit the opponent’s credit – all to enforce what the opponent calls an “ill-gotten” financial award. Reviews similarly mention that she “over-promises yet under-delivers” and can ruin people financially. The picture painted is of an attorney using every tool (legitimate or not) to pressure the other side and profit from a flawed judgment.
These allegations, if accurate, suggest serious professional misconduct. The website’s summary argues that Barrett “systematically abused her law license — evading due-process rules to force a default, harassing her opponent and his family with threats and intimidation, fabricating communications to mislead the court, and exploiting defective orders to extract ‘ill-gotten’ gains”, amounting to a “pattern of deceit, coercion, and profiteering” that makes her “wholly unfit to practice law.”. Each of the acts described (tampering with service, falsifying evidence, harassing third parties, misusing court orders) would individually be grounds for discipline or disbarment. Taken together, they portray an attorney engaging in egregiously unethical behavior. It’s important to note that these are allegations (primarily from an opponent’s perspective), but they are documented in sworn statements and echo many of the same complaints raised by clients in public reviews. The consistency of these reports across different sources is a significant concern.
Professional Standing and Discipline
As of now, no public disciplinary action against Elizabeth Barrett is readily visible in the New Hampshire Bar’s records. Avvo’s profile notes “No misconduct found” on her license, indicating she is an active member of the bar with no official sanctions to date. This means she has not been disbarred or publicly censured as of the latest information. However, the absence of published discipline does not necessarily mean the absence of problems: formal discipline can take time, and it’s possible that complaints have been filed but are still pending review. In fact, one client review explicitly mentioned reporting her to the bar for unethical conduct. Given the gravity of the accusations (e.g. evidence fabrication, harassment), it would not be surprising if a New Hampshire Bar investigation were underway behind the scenes.
For a potential client, the key point is that multiple independent sources warn about Barrett’s conduct. The New Hampshire Bar Association has not (yet) issued any public reprimand or suspension in her name that we could find, so officially, she remains in good standing. But consumers should weigh the consistency of the complaints: when numerous clients – and even an opposing party in court – independently describe similar misconduct, it is a serious red flag. At the very least, these reports suggest you should exercise extreme caution and do further due diligence before hiring her as your family lawyer.
Summary of Key Concerns
In summary, the issues and concerns raised about Elizabeth Barrett include:
- Poor Client Experiences: An abundance of 1-star reviews on Google and Avvo cite her lack of strategy, poor communication, giving incorrect legal advice, and mishandling of cases. Her practice has one of the lowest client ratings in the area (around 2/5 stars), indicating a pattern of dissatisfied clients.
- Ethical Red Flags: Multiple clients have accused Barrett of dishonesty (lying to them or to the court) and even claim she boasted about using false evidence to win cases. Such behavior would violate legal ethics rules if true.
- Harassment Complaints: Both reviews and court allegations say she harassed people with unwanted calls/messages and even third parties related to a case. This raises concerns about her professionalism and judgment.
- Alleged Legal Misconduct: In one detailed case account, Barrett is accused of abusing legal procedures – e.g., skirting service of process requirements, fabricating email evidence, and leveraging a questionable default judgment for financial gain. These claims go beyond typical complaints and suggest potential serious misconduct.
Bottom Line: All available evidence points to a lawyer with a troubling track record. Elizabeth Barrett is described by various former clients and observers as “incompetent,” “unethical,” “dishonest,” and “life‐destroying” in their words. An opponent has gone so far as to create a website documenting what they call a “pattern of deceit” in her practice. To date, she has not been publicly disciplined by the bar, but the volume and consistency of complaints are an essential concern.
Anyone considering hiring Attorney Barrett for family law matters should carefully weigh these issues. It may be prudent to speak with past clients or check for any updates on her bar status. At minimum, approach with caution and ensure you are comfortable given the serious allegations on record. Hiring the right family lawyer is critical, and in Barrett’s case, the red flags raised by others are significant and well-documented. Always make an informed decision – in this instance, the information gathered strongly urges thorough caution before proceeding.
