Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Adelman Law LLC
Firm Juris No. 405681 · New Haven Judicial District · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
What this is. A data-driven scouting report on how this firm litigates contested divorce and custody cases. Every number below is computed from the firm's own filing history across the public CT family-court docket. This is a litigation-pattern analysis of public records — not legal advice, and not a claim about any individual case. Patterns describe tendencies, not guarantees.
This is general information about public litigation patterns — not legal advice, and not a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.
Snapshot
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 87 | A steady, established contested-divorce practice |
| Home turf | New Haven (NNH): 85, plus Bridgeport (1), Waterbury (1) | This is a New Haven firm — they live in one courthouse |
| Side they take | 60 plaintiff / 27 defendant | Files first more than 2:1 — they tend to set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 7.74 | A motion-heavy, attrition style |
| Contested-motion win rate | 75% (95 granted vs 31 denied, 126 decided) | When this firm contests a matter on the record, it usually prevails |
| Busiest judges | Three-way tie: Hon. Jane Grossman, Hon. Karen Goodrow, Hon. Christopher Griffin (24 each) | They know the NNH bench cold |
Bottom line: a focused, single-attorney New Haven shop that files first, files often, and prevails on most of what it puts in front of judges it appears before constantly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; focus, the record, and procedure are where that volume matters least.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is volume + contempt pressure + discovery friction. Three numbers define them:
- 1.45 contempt motions per case (126 total — 46 general, 29 post-judgment, 22 pendente lite) — contempt is a primary, frequently-filed motion for this firm, not a last resort. The pattern is for the opposing party to be accused of violating orders early and often, and to be cast as the "bad actor" on the record.
- 1.08 discovery motions per case (94 total), plus a steady stream of objections (53 objections to motion, 22 standalone objections, 14 motions to compel, 14 protective orders). Discovery and objection practice become a source of friction — the effect is that the process grows expensive before the merits are reached.
- 0.86 continuances per case (75 total) — the timeline tends to stretch, which keeps the fee meter running and can wear down an under-resourced party first.
Add 0.84 modification motions per case (73) and 0.40 counsel-fee requests per case (35), and the model is clear: a busy docket, the opposing party kept on defense, and attrition over time.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, Adelman's side puts ~21.4 filings on the docket per case — a heavy load by family-court standards. And the volume is not evenly distributed:
- Represented opponents draw the heaviest paper. Against a represented opponent: 26.74 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 17.08 filings/case. The biggest barrages on this firm's docket land in lawyer-vs-lawyer matters — but a self-represented spouse still faces an average of 17 filings, which is a substantial volume to answer alone.
- The heaviest barrage on record: Mettler v. Mettler (NNH-FA06-4021437-S) — 353 filings, an extraordinary, years-long campaign (opponent represented).
- Heaviest barrages against self-represented opponents: Nugent v. Nugent (NNH-FA18-5043434-S) — 76 filings, opponent pro se; Thompson-Newkirk v. Newkirk (NNH-FA17-6076179-S) — 54 filings, opponent pro se; Vanderburgh v. Vanderburgh (NNH-FA16-5036714-S) — 44 filings, opponent pro se. Dozens of filings directed at someone with no attorney.
This is the core of the attrition model: the docket itself carries the pressure. For a self-represented party, the pattern is a sustained filing load — the procedural information below describes the tools and rules relevant to exactly that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Order | 110 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Continuance | 74 | Controls the clock |
| Objection to Motion | 53 | Reflexive opposition — contests most points |
| Motion for Contempt (gen.) | 46 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 29 | Keeps pressure on long after the divorce |
| Objection | 22 | More reflexive opposition |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 22 | Early contempt pressure before judgment |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment - PL | 20 | Locks in early advantage |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 10.3% of their cases (9 of 87) — they reach for a guardian ad litem selectively, but they did move for GAL appointment 13 times. When a GAL is brought in, the pattern is that it functions as a custody lever, not a neutral afterthought.
- Repeat pairing: this firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (4 appearances each). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that recurring pairing is part of the public record.
What the record shows: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with this firm are visible in public docket history. A party may ask the court for a GAL from outside any recurring rotation, and the appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline are ordinarily defined; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and scope open-ended.
The bench
They appear most before a tight rotation of Hon. Jane Grossman, Hon. Karen Goodrow, and Hon. Christopher Griffin (24 rulings each), then Grasso Egan (15), Frazzini, Tindill, and Klau (13 each). Their 75% contested-motion win rate reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances build knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. A self-represented opponent who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice narrows that familiarity gap.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a firm with a ~8-motions-per-case attrition style, the recurring observation is that volume is the firm's defining feature. The information below pairs each pattern above with the procedural tool or rule that relates to it — described, not prescribed.
- Contempt practice. With 1.45 contempt motions per case — this firm's single most-used motion — contempt filings are a recurring feature of its docket. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with every order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the kind of record that addresses a contempt allegation on the documents. A contempt motion unsupported by the documents tends to fail, which can affect a firm's credibility with judges it appears before constantly.
- Discovery friction. This firm runs heavily on discovery motions and reflexive objections (94 discovery motions; 75 objections of all kinds). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; documenting every response preserves that record. Where discovery demands are excessive, a motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use to limit the scope or burden of discovery (Conn. Practice Book §13-5).
- Continuances and the clock. This firm averages ~0.86 continuances per case, which tends to stretch timelines. A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner; continuances can be opposed on the record, in which case the requesting party must justify the delay.
- Counsel-fee requests. With 35 counsel-fee requests on record, fee-shifting requests are a recurring feature of this firm's practice. Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A firm's own motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record a court may weigh when assessing what drove the cost.
- GAL scope. A GAL appears in only about 1 in 10 of this firm's cases. When one is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with this firm are part of the public record (the firm reuses the same guardians), and the appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline are ordinarily set.
- The process-versus-merits pattern. This firm's model centers on the process — ~21 filings per case, a wall of objections, contempt on defense. A short, clean, merits-focused record is the structural counterweight to a high-volume docket: a tight, well-documented record and early focus on the substantive questions (custody, support, division) reduce the leverage that raw filing volume otherwise carries.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Win rate" = Granted ÷ (Granted + Denied) on the firm's own filed motions where the docket records an outcome; many entries record no outcome and are excluded. Marker counts use keyword matching on docket event descriptions and may include related sub-types. Firm-name aggregation follows the docket's recorded firm name (the source truncates long names). Patterns reflect aggregate history, not the conduct of any one attorney or the merits of any one case.