Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Cohen & Wolf PC

Firm Juris Nos. 010032 / 100137 · 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

Bottom line: a well-resourced, motion-aggressive firm with a high grant rate on the contested motions it brings before judges it appears before frequently. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the record and the governing procedural rules are where that volume is most visible.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is discovery pressure, fee leverage, and frequent continuances. Three numbers describe the pattern:

• 3.6 discovery motions per case (835 total) — including motions to compel (155) and protective orders (57). Discovery is the firm's primary area of motion activity. The effect is to make the process costly and time-consuming before a case reaches the merits.
• 2.3 counsel-fee requests per case (533 mentions; 40 counsel-fee motions) — the firm routinely asks the court to make the other side pay its fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, fee-shifting requests are a notable feature of the firm's practice: continued litigation may carry a cost-allocation risk.
• 1.6 contempt motions per case (380 total — 171 post-judgment, 106 general, 74 pendente lite) — contempt is a frequently-filed motion for this firm, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations commonly appear early and recur.

Add 1.9 continuances per case (448) and the overall pattern emerges: an extended timeline, a high volume of discovery and contempt motions, and ongoing fee activity.

The filing barrage — and who gets the most

Across all cases, Cohen & Wolf's side puts ~33.9 filings on the docket per case — a heavy paper load by any measure. The volume holds up regardless of whether the other side has a lawyer:

• Self-represented opponents see the same volume, not a lighter one. Against a pro-se opponent: 34.06 filings/case (72 cases). Against a represented opponent: 33.83/case (160 cases). Lack of representation does not correspond to a lighter paper volume; if anything the figure is marginally higher.
• The highest filing counts on record: Malpeso v. Malpeso (FST-FA01-0185205-S) — 422 firm filings (the firm's all-time high); DeChellis v. DeChellis (FST-FA06-4010042-S) — 406; Budrawich v. Budrawich (FBT-FA04-0412864-S) — 285 (opponent pro se).
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Budrawich v. Budrawich (FBT-FA04-0412864-S) — 285 firm filings; Kosar v. Giangrande (FST-FA19-6040955-S) — 129; Farber v. Farber (FST-FA13-4025482-S) — 117. Over a hundred filings in cases where the opponent had no attorney.

This is the core of the high-volume model: the docket itself reflects the firm's filing intensity. The figures above suggest a self-represented opponent can expect the full filing load; the section below describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• GAL appears in 9.1% of their cases (21 of 232) — and the firm affirmatively touches GAL-appointment activity 140 times across its docket. GAL appointments appear as a custody-related feature of the firm's practice rather than a routine afterthought.
• Repeat GAL pairings. The firm repeatedly appears with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (4 appearances each for the most frequent, then 3 for the next). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that history is a matter of public record.

What the rules provide: the prior pairings between a proposed GAL and a firm are discoverable from the public docket. A party may ask that a GAL be selected from outside any recurring rotation, and may ask that the appointment order define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline up front — an unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended commitment.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Margarita Hartley Moore (85 rulings) more than any other judge, then Tindill (52), Heller (52), Grossman (51), Colin (50), Malone (46), Truglia (45), and Grasso Egan (33). Their 76% contested-motion grant rate is partly familiarity — frequent appearances mean the firm is accustomed to each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. Each assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice are publicly available, and that familiarity gap narrows as those materials become known to any party.

What to expect — and your procedural options

The defining feature of an 11-motions-per-case firm is volume. The descriptions below pair each observed pattern with the procedural tools and rules that relate to it — as information, not as a recommendation for any case.

1. The discovery pattern. At 3.6 discovery motions per case (835 total), the firm's activity centers on motions to compel and protective orders. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a contemporaneous record of each response documents compliance. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use in response to demands that exceed the rules. Where the record shows one party as the compliant one, that fact bears on both the discovery dispute and any fee allocation.

1. The contempt pattern. With 1.6 contempt motions per case (380 total, 171 of them post-judgment), contempt motions are a recurring feature of this firm's docket. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order — payments, exchanges, communications — is the evidence relevant to a contempt allegation. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents is one the court can deny.

1. The fee-leverage pattern. With 533 fee mentions and 40 counsel-fee motions, the firm regularly asks courts to shift fees. Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that a court may weigh in deciding who drove the cost.

1. The continuance pattern. Continuances are the firm's single most-filed motion (413) — about 1.9 per case. 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, and each continuance is something the moving party must justify.

1. The objection pattern. "Objection to Motion" (227) is one of the firm's top filings, meaning opposing motions frequently draw a written objection. A fully-supported motion that briefs the governing legal standard up front is one that addresses the objection it is likely to draw before it is filed.

1. The GAL pattern. With GAL activity touched 140 times and a small recurring roster, a proposed GAL's prior pairings with the firm are a matter of public record. The rules permit a party to ask for a GAL outside any recurring rotation and to ask that scope, budget, and a reporting deadline be written into the appointment order. The firm's model is high-process-volume, so a concise, merits-focused record — custody, support, and division addressed early — is the part of a case least affected by filing volume.

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.