Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Allen Gregory Law Offices of PC
Firm Juris No. 419043 · Connecticut · 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) | 103 | A high-volume family-law practice, run by a single attorney of record |
| Home turf | New Haven (NNH): 72, then New Britain (HHB: 13), Waterbury (UWY: 12) | New Haven is overwhelmingly their court |
| Side they take | 71 plaintiff / 32 defendant | Files first roughly 2-to-1 |
| Motions per case | 3.26 | A motion-active practice, with discovery as the main lever |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 86% (decided sample of 100 motions) | When a contested matter is decided on the record, it tends to go this firm's way |
| Busiest judges | Hon. Karen Goodrow (23) and Hon. Christopher Griffin (23), then Grossman (14) | They appear before a familiar New Haven-area bench |
Bottom line: a one-attorney shop that files first, leans hard on discovery, and prevails on most decided motions before judges it appears before repeatedly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the procedural patterns below describe how that volume tends to show up on the docket.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + first-mover positioning + fee leverage. Three numbers define them:
- 1.47 discovery motions per case (151 total) — discovery is the single most common marker in their docket, well ahead of anything else. Discovery is where most of the activity concentrates, which tends to make the process expensive before a matter reaches the merits.
- Plaintiff-side by default (71 of 103 cases) — they open the case more often than not, which positions them to frame the dispute, file the first motions, and influence early scheduling.
- 0.50 counsel-fee requests per case (51 mentions) — fee-shifting is routinely put in play. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, fee exposure is a recurring feature of this firm's docket: the cost of litigating can land on the opposing party.
Add 0.81 continuances per case (83 total) and 0.36 contempt markers per case (37) and the full picture is a practice that tends to control the clock, keep discovery active, and keep fees in play over the life of a case.
The filing barrage — and where it lands heaviest
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~17.8 filings on the docket per case — a heavy paper load for a single-attorney practice.
- The load does not lighten for unrepresented opponents. Against a pro-se opponent: 17.93 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 17.69/case. The volume is essentially the same whether or not the opposing party has a lawyer — a self-represented spouse faces the same paper load as one with counsel, typically with fewer resources to respond to it.
- The heaviest filing counts on record (opponent self-represented except where noted):
- McCormick v. McCormick (NNH-FA19-6091206-S) — 48 filings (opponent pro se)
- Perrone v. Perrone (NNH-FA24-6141391-S) — 47 filings
- Gonzalez v. Gonzalez (HHB-FA17-6039579-S) — 44 filings (opponent pro se)
- Rodriguez v. DeMauro (KNO-FA20-5108584-S) — 44 filings (opponent pro se)
- Sabino v. Sabino (NNH-FA16-6063139-S) — 41 filings
- High filing counts against self-represented opponents specifically: Bauer v. Bauer (NNH-FA17-6073744-S) — 41 filings; James v. Perkins-James (NNH-FA22-6124224-S) — 41 filings. Dozens of filings in cases where the opposing party had no attorney.
The data does not show the firm filing less against self-represented opponents; the volume is comparable to cases with opposing counsel. The procedural-options section below describes the tools that exist for the asymmetry that volume can create.
Their motion mix (top filings)
| Their move | Count | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 81 | Affects case timing |
| Motion for Order | 44 | General-purpose / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment – Pendente Lite | 26 | Sets early, temporary terms |
| Motion for Reference – Family Relations Division | 14 | Routes custody disputes to evaluation |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 12 | Raises an alleged-violation issue during the case |
| Motion for Order of Notice | 10 | Service / procedural setup |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 9 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody questions |
| Motion to Compel | 8 | Discovery enforcement |
| Motion for Alimony Pendente Lite | 7 | Early support request |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 8.7% of their cases (9 of 103), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 9 times. GAL use is selective — concentrated in the custody disputes the firm chooses to escalate — rather than routine.
- Repeat pairing: the firm repeatedly appears alongside a small set of the same guardians ad litem (4 appearances each). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that history is part of the public record.
Procedural context: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record that a party can research. A party may ask that an appointment order define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped appointment leaves both cost and reporting open-ended.
The bench
They appear most before Hon. Karen Goodrow (23) and Hon. Christopher Griffin (23), then Grossman (14), Tindill (13), and Ficeto (13) — a concentrated New Haven-area bench. Their 86% grant rate on decided motions reflects, in part, familiarity: repeated appearances before the same judges build knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A judge's standing orders are public, and a self-represented party who reviews the assigned judge's standing orders has access to the same procedural expectations.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This firm's litigation profile is discovery-driven and first-mover. The points below are descriptive: each pairs a pattern from the data above with the general procedural tools and rules that exist in Connecticut family practice. They describe what the tools are and what the pattern is; they are not instructions for any particular case.
- Discovery is the most-used lever. Discovery is the single most common marker in this firm's docket (1.47 motions/case). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. When a party believes a request is overbroad, the objection and the protective order are the procedural tools that exist to raise that. A complete, documented response record is what establishes which side complied.
- First-mover positioning and pendente lite terms. This firm files as plaintiff 71 of 103 times and front-loads pendente lite orders (26 PL-order motions). Temporary terms set early in a case often shape what follows; the pendente lite phase is the procedural stage where a responding party can propose competing temporary terms before the early framing is settled.
- Fee leverage and what fee awards turn on. With 51 fee mentions, fee-shifting is a recurring feature of this firm's docket. Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are themselves part of the litigation-conduct record that a court can consider on a fee question.
- Case timing and the continuance pattern. Continuance is this firm's single most-filed motion (81; 0.81/case). Continuances can be opposed on the record. A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner. These are the two mechanisms that exist on either side of the scheduling question.
- Contempt and pendente-lite contempt motions. This firm files contempt pendente lite (12) and carries a 0.36/case contempt marker rate. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a contempt allegation is decided against on the documents. A contempt motion that is not supported by the record is resolved on that record.
- GAL scope and pairing history. GAL use here is selective but repeat-paired (see GAL section). A proposed GAL's prior pairings with a firm are public record. A written scope, budget, and deadline in an appointment order are the terms that define a GAL's role and cost up front. Because this firm's docket is process-heavy, the substantive questions — custody, support, division — are the merits the procedural activity sits on top of.
The recurring observation across all six points is the same: this firm's volume is its defining feature, and the procedural tools above exist within ordinary Connecticut family practice regardless of any one case.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Grant 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.