Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Collins Hannafin P.C.

Firm Juris No. 013472 · Danbury, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (32 contested cases) — treat the rates below as indicative, not definitive.

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 Danbury-anchored firm whose practice runs through discovery activity and the calendar. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the contrast on the record tends to be focus, documentation, and procedure.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is discovery activity + fee references + use of the calendar. Three numbers define them:

• 2.0 discovery motions per case (64 total) — discovery is where most of their activity concentrates. Between motions to compel, extension-of-time requests, protective orders, and objections to interrogatories/production, much of the contest plays out in the process rather than the merits. The effect is that procedure becomes time-consuming and costly before the merits are reached.
• 1.4 counsel-fee mentions per case (46 total) — fees are a recurring theme. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable feature, because cost-shifting is frequently raised.
• 0.8 continuances per case (26 total; 25 Motions for Continuance) — the calendar is a routine part of their practice. Timelines in these cases tend to stretch.

Add a real strain of discovery objections (16 across the cases) and the picture is clear: production is contested, extensions are requested, the fee question stays active, and delay is a recurring feature.

The filing volume — and where it concentrates

Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~16.8 filings on the docket per case. The volume is not evenly distributed:

• Filing volume is higher against unrepresented opponents, not lower. Against a pro-se opponent: 18.8 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 15.95/case. The party least equipped to respond sees the heavier paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 18% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The highest filing counts on record: Longo v. Longo (DBD-FA18-6027788-S) — 78 filings, the firm's all-time high; Arnold v. Arnold (DBD-FA16-6020705-S) — 31; Israelsky v. Israelsky (DBD-FA03-4008116-S) — 30 (opponent pro se); Hill v. Prazeres (DBD-FA20-6037164-S) — 27.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Israelsky v. Israelsky (DBD-FA03-4008116-S) — 30 filings; Ault-Authier v. Pepin (FST-FA17-6031619-S) — 22; Oed v. Oed (FBT-FA16-6059737-S) — 22; Berman v. Berman (DBD-FA12-4014755-S) — 22; Ferro v. Ferro (DBD-FA20-6036692-S) — 22. Dozens of filings each, in cases where the opponent had no attorney.

For a self-represented party, the data indicates the heavier-volume profile applies — the procedural options described below address exactly that asymmetry.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in only ~3% of their cases (1 of 32). On this record, guardians ad litem are not a routine feature of how this firm litigates — though the firm did move for GAL appointment in a meaningful share of cases (19 marker mentions), so the topic can surface in custody disputes.
• No recurring guardian-ad-litem pairing rises to a reportable pattern in this sample.

What this means: When a GAL is appointed, the appointment order is the document that defines the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting timeline; an appointment order that leaves those terms open-ended leaves the cost and the engagement open-ended as well.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Heidi Winslow (17 rulings) more than any other judge, then Hon. Cara Eschuk (11), with a scattering before Medina, Axelrod, and Colin. Familiarity with the Danbury bench is part of their edge — they know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A judge's standing orders are public, and familiarity with the assigned judge's standing orders is what narrows that information gap.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This firm's practice concentrates on discovery activity and the calendar. The following describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern above — as information about how the process works, not as direction about any particular case.

1. Discovery responses. With 2.0 discovery motions per case, discovery is where most of their activity concentrates. 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 when a discovery demand is overbroad. As a matter of record, the party whose responses are complete and timely is the documented compliant party, which is relevant to how a fee argument is evaluated.

1. Discovery objections. They lodge objections to interrogatories/production (PB 13-8 & 13-10) and move to extend discovery deadlines. Discovery requests that are narrow, specific, and PB-compliant give an objection less to attach to. A discovery schedule set by the court governs deadlines, and extensions are granted by motion rather than automatically.

1. Counsel-fee references. With 1.4 counsel-fee mentions per case, cost-shifting is frequently raised. Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are part of the record a court can consider when assessing what drove litigation cost.

1. Continuances and the calendar. They average roughly 0.8 continuances per case, and Motion for Continuance is their single most-filed motion (25). 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. Each continuance is something the moving party must justify to the court.

1. Filing volume against a self-represented party. They file ~18% more against unrepresented opponents (18.8 vs 15.95 filings/case). A docket index — a record of every filing and the response to it — is the standard way self-represented parties keep filing volume from translating into a missed deadline. Not every filing requires a response; which ones do is set by the rules of practice for each filing type.

1. The merits record. This firm's practice leans on the process. A short, focused, merits-oriented record is the structural contrast to a high-volume one. The substantive questions in a family case — custody, support, division of property — are decided on their merits regardless of 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 — and here the decided-motion sample is too small to report a rate. 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.