Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Broder Orland Murray & DeMattie LLC

Firm Juris No. 424014 · Westport / Greenwich, CT · 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

Bottom line: a well-resourced, motion-aggressive firm with a high grant rate before judges it appears in front of regularly. The defining feature of this firm's record is its filing volume.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is volume + discovery pressure + fee leverage. Three numbers define them:

• 4.2 discovery motions per case (1,404 total) — motions to compel (97), orders of compliance under PB §13-14 (92), protective orders (73). Discovery is a central part of the firm's filing activity. The pattern is one of making the process costly and time-consuming well before the merits are reached.
• 3.4 counsel-fee requests per case (1,121 mentions) — fees are routinely raised on the record, putting the cost of the litigation in front of the judge. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable pressure point.
• 1.5 contempt motions per case (480 total — 208 post-judgment, 119 pendente lite, 75 general) — contempt motions appear frequently rather than as a last resort. Allegations of order violations tend to surface early and often.

Add 1.8 continuances per case (599) and the overall picture is a long timeline, heavy discovery and contempt activity, and sustained fee references over the life of the case.

The filing barrage — and who gets it most

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~31 filings on the docket per case. The volume is not evenly distributed:

• The firm files more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 39.6 filings/case (67 such cases). Against a represented opponent: 28.8/case (264 cases). The self-represented party in these records faces roughly 38% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest filing counts on record: Greenan v. Greenan (FST-FA09-4015784-S) — 544 filings (the firm's all-time high); Brody v. Brody (FST-FA08-4014434-S) — 462; Ponns Cohen v. Cohen (FST-FA14-4026825-S) — 368 (opponent pro se).
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Ponns Cohen v. Cohen (FST-FA14-4026825-S) — 368 filings, pro se; Morgan v. Whitticom (FST-FA21-6050273-S) — 202, pro se; Simon v. Schultz (DBD-FA20-6036991-S) — 174, pro se; Toland v. Toland (FST-FA14-4028146-S) — 134, pro se; Slater v. Sinenko (FST-FA20-6048366-S) — 97, pro se. Hundreds of filings in cases where the opponent had no attorney.

This is the core of the firm's high-volume profile: the docket itself carries a large filing load, and self-represented opponents in these records faced the highest counts. The section below describes the procedural tools and rules relevant to that pattern.

Their motion pattern (top filings)

GAL pattern

• A GAL appears in 11.2% of their cases (37 of 331), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 73 times. GALs feature regularly in this firm's custody matters.
• Repeat GAL pairings. The firm repeatedly appears alongside a small set of the same guardians ad litem (one recurring up to 5 appearances, others at 4 and 3 appearances each). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that history is a matter of public record.

Information: A guardian ad litem is appointed by the court in some custody matters. The proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are public docket information. An appointment order can define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadlines; the absence of a defined scope leaves the cost and duration of the appointment open-ended. A party may ask the court regarding the GAL selection and the terms of the appointment order.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Donna Heller (106 rulings) more than any other judge, then Kowalski (90), Tindill (76), Shay (62), Schofield (60), Truglia (54). Their 76% contested-motion win rate reflects, in part, familiarity — frequent appearances before the same judges. The assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice are public, and reviewing them is one way a self-represented party can become familiar with that judge's procedures.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This is a firm whose record shows roughly 10 motions per case. The items below pair each documented pattern with the procedural tools and rules that relate to it. They describe what the tools and rules are — not what any party should do.

1. Discovery activity. With 4.2 discovery motions per case — motions to compel plus §13-14 orders of compliance — discovery is a central part of this firm's filings. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use to address discovery demands that are claimed to be overbroad. The Practice Book governs discovery obligations and deadlines.

1. Contempt activity. With 1.5 contempt motions per case (480 total, 208 of them post-judgment), contempt allegations are a recurring feature of this firm's record. A contempt motion turns on whether an order was violated; contemporaneous documentation of compliance with an order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the kind of evidence relevant to that question.

1. Fee references. With 3.4 fee references per case, the cost of the litigation is regularly placed in front of the judge. In Connecticut, counsel-fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation record a court may consider when assessing litigation conduct and the source of cost.

1. Continuances and scheduling. This firm averages 1.8 continuances per case (599 total), and continuances are its single most-filed motion (511). A continuance 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 two tools relate to who controls the case schedule.

1. Filing volume against self-represented parties. Self-represented opponents in these records drew 39.6 filings/case vs 28.8 for represented ones, and the heaviest pro-se dockets ran into the hundreds. Limited-scope ("unbundled") representation is one option Connecticut allows, in which an attorney appears for a defined portion of a case; it is one way the volume asymmetry has been addressed.

1. GAL appointments. A GAL appears in 11.2% of their cases, and the firm moves for appointment 73 times, repeatedly appearing with the same handful of guardians. The proposed name and its prior pairings are public; the appointment order is where scope, budget, and deadlines are set.

1. Volume is the firm's defining feature. This firm's record is defined by its filing volume. A short, focused, merits-oriented record is the structural counterpart to a high-volume one; the substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division of property) are decided on the merits regardless of how many motions appear on the docket.

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.