Google reviews expose Elizabeth Barrett through the voices of angry clients. But her Avvo profile—a platform designed to evaluate lawyers professionally—cements the case that she is unfit to practise law.
As of September 2025, Barrett’s Avvo review score is 1.8 out of 5.0, drawn from five client reviews. Four of those reviews are scathing one-star accounts; only one is positive. Even Avvo’s own algorithm, which weighs experience and background, gives her a paltry 5.8/10—an “Average” rating Avvo itself describes as cause for concern .
This is not the profile of a respected attorney. It is the profile of a professional in free fall.
Reviews That Shred Her Credibility
The written reviews on Avvo are not polite disagreements; they are condemnations:
-
“Lacks insight and strategy … caused a massive loss.” A former client said she pushed for shortsighted outcomes with no long-term vision, leaving them worse off .
-
“Bragged about making up evidence to secure high child support.” A prospective client recalls her openly boasting about fabricating evidence and submitting false declarations. That isn’t just unethical—it is fraud, proudly admitted .
-
“Doesn’t know the law … NH Child Support Services told me she was wrong.” One consultation revealed she gave basic child support advice so inaccurate that state officials corrected it .
-
“Horrible communication … wouldn’t listen to what I wanted … never explained why.” Clients describe not just incompetence, but arrogance—refusing to communicate while bulldozing through cases .
The only positive review—one calling her “knowledgeable and supportive”—reads like a lonely outlier. Against the tidal wave of one-star feedback, it looks less like reality and more like window dressing.
Avvo’s “No Misconduct Found” Disclaimer
Adding insult to injury, Barrett’s Avvo profile still displays “No misconduct found” . Yet side by side with these reviews, and with court filings alleging evidence fabrication, harassment of families, due-process evasion, and financial exploitation, the disclaimer is laughably hollow. It shows how rating platforms often lag behind real-world complaints—leaving consumers exposed to lawyers who are already failing clients.
The Pattern is Clear
Avvo reviews repeat the same themes seen in Google feedback and in court filings:
-
Fabrication of evidence.
-
Ignorance of the law.
-
Horrible communication.
-
Strategic incompetence.
When public reviews, client accounts, and sworn allegations all align, the conclusion is unavoidable: Elizabeth Barrett is not just a poor lawyer—she is a professional hazard.
Consumer Warning
Barrett’s Avvo profile does not hide the truth; it broadcasts it. 1.8/5.0. Four one-stars. A weak “Average” rating. Clients accuse her of bragging about fabricating evidence, failing to understand basic law, and destroying cases through arrogance and incompetence.
No one reading her Avvo page carefully could mistake her for a safe choice. The only mystery is why she is still licensed at all.
