Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Conlon & McGlynn LLC
Firm Juris No. 425451 · Lower Fairfield County, 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
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 50 | A steady contested-divorce caseload |
| Home turf | Stamford/Norwalk (FST): 38, then Bridgeport (8), Danbury (3), New Haven (1) | Lower Fairfield County is their court |
| Side they take | 25 plaintiff / 25 defendant | A perfect even split — no strong file-first tendency |
| Motions per case | 13.14 | A high-intensity, motion-heavy litigation style |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 70.9% (56 granted vs 23 denied) | On the motions they file that the docket records an outcome for, most are granted |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Marylouise Schofield (68), then Malone (38), Tindill (23) | They appear before the FST bench frequently |
Bottom line: a motion-aggressive firm that is granted most of the contested motions it files, before judges it appears in front of frequently. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns below describe how that volume tends to show up on the docket.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + fee leverage + contempt. Three numbers define them:
- 4.28 discovery motions per case (214 total) — motions to compel (37), protective orders (41), motions to quash (23), and orders of compliance under PB §13-14. Discovery is where much of their filing activity concentrates. The pattern tends to make the process expensive and time-consuming well before a matter reaches the merits.
- 3.86 counsel-fee requests per case (193 mentions) — they routinely ask the court to make the other side pay their fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable feature of the firm's practice: litigation against this firm carries a recurring fee-shifting request.
- 2.56 contempt motions per case (128 total — 81 post-judgment, 24 pendente lite, 16 general) — contempt is a frequently-filed motion for this firm rather than a rare one. The count skews heavily post-judgment, which means alleged order violations are commonly litigated long after the divorce is final.
Add 0.86 continuances per case (43) and the full picture emerges: a docket kept active with discovery and contempt motions, recurring fee-shifting requests, and sustained filing activity over the life of the case.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~33.5 filings on the docket per case. But the volume is not evenly distributed:
- Represented opponents draw the heaviest paper, but pro-se opponents still get buried. Against a represented opponent: 39.66 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 19.27/case. The higher represented number reflects the firm's small set of marathon, lawyer-on-lawyer megacases — but ~19 filings is still a substantial load for someone with no attorney to respond to them.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Brody v. Brody (FST-FA08-4014434-S) — 640 firm filings, the firm's all-time high; Lavy v. Lavy (FST-FA09-4016937-S) — 124; Wallace v. Wallace (FST-FA16-6029737-S) — 90; Maiolo v. Maiolo (FST-FA16-6027405-S) — 47; Leon v. Leon-Concepcion (FST-FA20-6048790-S) — 46.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Kelly v. Kelly (FST-FA16-6028247-S) — 44 firm filings, opponent pro se; Schneider v. Schneider (FST-FA19-6040940-S) — 36, pro se; Cando v. Contreras (FST-FA20-6049222-S) — 22, pro se; Timmins v. Kelly (FST-FA15-6027017-S) — 21, pro se; Robinson v. Robinson (FBT-FA18-6070470-S) — 20, pro se. Dozens of filings directed at people with no lawyer.
This is the core of the firm's filing model: sustained docket activity is its defining characteristic. A self-represented opponent can expect a steady, ongoing paper load — the procedural-options section below describes the tools and rules that bear on that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Order | 100 | General-purpose, agenda-setting motion |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 81 | Brings the matter back to court after final judgment |
| Objection to Motion | 43 | Opposes the opponent's motions on the record |
| Motion for Continuance | 41 | Affects the timing of the case |
| Motion for Protective Order | 41 | Limits their client's disclosure while seeking the opponent's |
| Motion to Compel | 37 | A discovery motion — often an opening filing |
| Motion for Order Post-Judgment | 34 | Keeps the case active after judgment |
| Motion to Quash | 23 | Challenges the opponent's subpoenas / discovery |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 24 | Places the opponent on defense early; builds a conduct record |
GAL strategy
- GAL appears in only 4% of their cases (2 of 50) — a low rate; this is not a firm that reflexively brings a guardian ad litem into every custody fight. The data does not show a recurring stable of the same GALs paired with this firm.
What this means: GAL appointment is the exception here, not the rule. Where one is proposed in a case involving this firm, that is a departure from the firm's usual pattern. Connecticut practice allows an appointment order to define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline up front; an unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost. Public track-record information about a proposed GAL is generally available before an appointment is made.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Marylouise Schofield (68 rulings) far more than any other judge, then Malone (38), Tindill (23), Emons (22), Heller (21), Munro (20), Colin (18), and Shay (16). Their ~71% contested-motion grant rate is partly a function of familiarity — repeated appearances before the same judges, whose preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice become known. Familiarity with an assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is information a self-represented opponent can also obtain.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is a 13-motions-per-case firm whose volume is its defining feature. The items below pair each docket pattern above with the procedural tools and rules that relate to it — described as information, not as a recommendation for any case.
- Discovery activity. At 4.28 discovery motions per case, much of this firm's practice runs through motions to compel, protective orders, and motions to quash. 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, and a complete, documented response record is what a court looks to when fee-shifting based on conduct is at issue.
- Contempt motions — especially post-judgment. With 2.56 contempt motions per case and 81 of them post-judgment, this firm's filing activity commonly continues after judgment. A contempt finding turns on proof of an order's terms and proof of compliance or non-compliance; contemporaneous records of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) are the documentary basis on which such motions are decided.
- Counsel-fee requests. At 3.86 counsel-fee requests per case, fee-shifting requests are a recurring feature of this firm's practice. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). The volume and nature of motion activity in a case is part of the litigation-conduct record a court may consider.
- Continuances and objections. They file 41 continuances and 43 objections-to-motion. 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. When a motion draws an objection, a narrow, well-supported motion gives the objection less to address.
- GAL appointments. GAL appears in only 4% of their cases, so a proposed appointment is a departure from the firm's usual pattern. Where one is appointed, an appointment order can specify the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline.
- Filing volume. The firm's filing model centers on process volume — 33.5 filings per case on average. The procedural counterpoint to high filing volume is a focused, merits-oriented record; the substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are decided on their merits regardless of how many ancillary motions are on the docket.
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.