Due-Process Evasion: The Case Against Elizabeth J. Barrett

A Lawyer Who Treated Court Orders as Optional

The record in Elizabeth J. Barrett v. Michael Williams (No. 670-2013-DM-00025) exposes conduct that no lawyer should ever commit. On January 11, 2022, the court issued an Order of Notice requiring strict compliance with service rules: service had to occur at least fourteen days before the May 24 hearing and only through three methods—sheriff in-hand service, sheriff abode service, or certified mail with restricted delivery. The order even underscored that no other methods were permitted. Williams shows beyond doubt that Barrett ignored these requirements, proceeding as though the law simply did not apply to her. This was not a mistake; it was a calculated defiance of the court’s clear mandate.

Filing After the Deadline to Engineer Default

The service deadline expired May 10, 2022. On May 11, Barrett—fully aware she had missed it—filed for default, requested a temporary support order, and simultaneously sought permission for email service. This sequence was deliberate: she failed to serve lawfully, then immediately tried to rewrite the rules while demanding the harshest possible sanction against her opponent. By attempting to cure a fatal service defect after the deadline, she manufactured a situation where Williams would appear in default without ever having had a lawful chance to respond. The timing reveals intent: Barrett engineered a legal ambush.

Misrepresenting Defective Notice as Compliance

Williams’s filings prove that Barrett relied on ordinary first-class mail and unauthorized email before the court ever granted permission. She did so knowing that he had blocked her emails and warned that they could not constitute notice. Despite this, she pressed ahead and argued that her defective efforts amounted to “actual notice.” The reality is that she conflated awareness with lawful service, exploiting technical defects to her advantage. This was not creative advocacy—it was deceit, designed to cloak unlawful acts in a veneer of legitimacy.

Undermining Jurisdictional Bedrock

New Hampshire law is clear: if service is defective, the court lacks jurisdiction. RSA 510:4 and cases such as Impact Food Sales v. Evans and Adams v. Sullivan confirm that orders based on improper service are void. Barrett ignored this bedrock principle. She acted as though jurisdiction was a technicality to be brushed aside rather than the foundation of legal authority. In doing so, she not only violated her professional obligations but also undermined the court itself. Her actions struck at the very heart of due process.

Profiting From a Void Order

Through her tactics, Barrett secured a default-based increase in support obligations. Williams correctly characterizes those sums as “ill-gotten moneys.” They were extracted through orders that should never have existed. By collecting under defective process, Barrett personally benefited from her misconduct. This transforms her actions from mere negligence into outright abuse—an attorney enriching herself through unlawful means, in violation of both professional ethics and public trust.

A Systematic Betrayal of Justice

What Barrett did was not an isolated slip. It was a pattern of conscious rule-breaking:

• Ignoring explicit court orders on service methods.

• Missing the deadline, then retroactively seeking alternate service.

• Relying on emails she knew would not be received.

• Exploiting the defect to demand default relief.

Each step was part of a strategy to short-circuit Williams’s right to be heard. This is not zealous advocacy; it is weaponized procedure. It reveals an attorney willing to win by fraud rather than by merit.

Comparison to Professional Standards

Attorneys across jurisdictions have faced discipline—even disbarment—for less. Lawyers have been suspended for late filings, for failing to notify opposing parties, and for misleading courts on service issues. Barrett went further: she deliberately violated a clear court order, concealed her defective service, and then profited from it. Her conduct places her well beyond the boundary of professional acceptability.

Conclusion: Unfit to Practise Law

Elizabeth J. Barrett’s conduct in this case makes one conclusion unavoidable: she is unfit to practise law. She disregarded court orders, violated statutory law, and undermined jurisdiction itself, all to secure a one-sided result. She profited from defective orders and treated due process as expendable. No profession can tolerate a member who operates in such bad faith. By her actions, Barrett has forfeited any claim to the trust and responsibility inherent in the title of attorney.

“Barrett didn’t just miss a deadline—she tried to rewrite the rules after the fact and punish her opponent for her own failure. No ethical lawyer files for default knowing service was defective, yet she did so brazenly, as though court orders were optional. By disguising unlawful notice as compliance, she undermined jurisdiction itself and turned due process into a weapon. This wasn’t advocacy, it was fraud on the court, and it proves she has no business practising law.”