Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Cotter Greenfield Manfredi & Lenes P.C.
Firm Juris No. 024795 · New London Judicial District (KNO) · 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) | 61 | A steady-volume contested-divorce practice |
| Home turf | New London (KNO): 61 | One district — this is their court |
| Side they take | 31 plaintiff / 30 defendant | A near-even split; they take whichever chair the case gives them |
| Motions per case | 2.07 (126 total) | Moderate motion volume — they pick their spots rather than carpet-bomb |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 95% (19 granted vs 1 denied) | When they put a fight on the record, it almost always lands |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Kenneth Shluger (9), then Connors (8), Newson (7) | They know the KNO bench cold |
Bottom line: a focused, home-court firm with a near-perfect grant rate on decided motions before judges it appears in front of constantly. Their defining feature is not raw motion volume — it is a heavy overall paper load, deep familiarity with one bench, and discipline about which motions reach a decision. The record, procedure, and the merits are where these patterns are most visible.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is paper weight + custody-lever GAL practice + a clean, decided motion record. Three patterns define them:
- A heavy overall docket, not a heavy motion docket. They average only 2.07 motions per case, but 10.59 total filings per case (646 filings across 61 cases). The pressure comes from the full weight of the file — appearances, objections, scheduling papers, supporting filings — not from a flood of contested motions. The volume is real; it just isn't all "motions."
- Discovery and continuances as routine pressure. A discovery-motion marker in 66% of cases (40 cases) and a continuance marker in 44% (27 cases) — with Motion for Continuance their single most-filed motion (26). They use process timing as a steady background pressure.
- A disciplined, high-conversion motion record. Only 20 of their 126 motions reach a recorded decision, and 19 of those 20 were granted — they tend to bring the motions they expect to win and let the rest resolve or wash out. Their fingerprints also show counsel-fee markers in 36% of cases (22) and contempt markers in 26% (16): fee leverage and contempt are in the toolkit, used selectively.
The filing volume — and who sees the most
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~10.6 filings on the docket per case. The load is not evenly distributed:
- They file more against unrepresented opponents. Against a pro-se opponent: 11.46 filings/case (24 cases). Against a represented opponent: 10.03/case (37 cases). The party least equipped to respond sees the heavier paper load.
- The heaviest filing counts on record: Coleman v. Coleman (KNO-FA19-6105004-S) — 32 filings (the firm's all-time high here); Ogg v. Ogg (KNO-FA21-6106465-S) — 31 filings, opponent pro se; DeMicco v. DeMicco (KNO-FA18-6104533-S) — 28 filings, opponent pro se.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Ogg v. Ogg — 31 filings; DeMicco v. DeMicco — 28; Tagaloa v. Tagaloa (KNO-FA20-6106347-S) — 26. Two dozen-plus filings in cases where the opposing party had no attorney.
Self-represented parties in this firm's cases have, on the data, tended to sit at the heavier end of the paper load — the asymmetry described below is the pattern the numbers show.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 26 | Controls the clock |
| Motion to Open and Modify Judgment | 9 | Reopens settled terms post-judgment |
| Motion for Custody of Minor Children PL | 8 | Sets the custody agenda early |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment - PL | 7 | General-purpose pendente lite pressure |
| Motion for Alimony PL | 7 | Locks in support posture early |
| Motion for Contempt | 7 | Puts the other side on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Support and Maintenance of Minor Child PL | 6 | Child-support posture |
| Motion for Exclusive Use of Premises | 5 | Possession of the home |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 5 | Enforcement after judgment |
GAL strategy
- A GAL is present in only about 5% of their cases (3 of 61), so a guardian ad litem is not a routine feature of this firm's files. That said, a GAL-appointment marker appears in 82% of cases (50) — meaning the subject of GAL appointment surfaces far more often than a GAL actually ends up on the docket. In this firm's pattern, a GAL proposal tends to function as a deliberate custody lever rather than an afterthought.
- The available data does not show this firm repeatedly pairing with the same small set of guardians ad litem; their GAL use is best described by rate, not by any recurring rotation.
Context: When a GAL is proposed in a Connecticut family case, the appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline up front — an unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk. Courts may be asked to draw a GAL from a neutral pool. These are descriptions of how the GAL-appointment process works, not a direction about any particular case.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Kenneth Shluger (9) more than any other judge, then Connors (8), Newson (7), Thomas (6), with Devine and Carbonneau behind. Their near-perfect grant rate on decided motions is partly familiarity — in a single district they know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. That familiarity gap tends to be narrowest where the opposing party is also acquainted with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This firm's history is that of a focused, home-court practice with a near-perfect decided-motion record. The patterns below pair each observed tendency with the neutral, generally-available procedural information that corresponds to it. None of this is a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.
- The decided-motion record. Their recorded outcomes are 19 granted, 1 denied — the motions that reach a ruling are largely ones they expected to win. As a matter of procedure, a motion that is responded to completely and on the record is decided on its merits rather than going unopposed; a fully-papered, contested ruling is the point at which any motion can be denied.
- The discovery pattern. A discovery-motion marker shows up in 66% of their cases. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; documenting each response, and (where a demand is over-broad) seeking a protective order, are the standard procedural responses. A complete record reflects which party complied.
- The clock. Motion for Continuance is their single most-filed motion (26), with a continuance marker in 44% of cases. 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, which requires the moving party to justify each delay.
- Fee leverage. A counsel-fee marker appears in 36% of their cases. Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62) — meaning a party's own filing volume and continuances are themselves relevant to who bears the cost. The factual record of what drove litigation expense is what the fee statute weighs.
- Contempt and reopen motions. Contempt markers appear in 26% of cases, and Motion to Open and Modify Judgment is their #2 filing (9). Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) and documented judgment terms are what a contempt or reopen motion is tested against on the record; a motion that the documents do not support is one that does not hold up before the bench.
- The volume as the defining feature. This firm's defining feature is the weight of the file (10.59 filings/case — more against pro-se opponents) and home-court familiarity, rather than the strength of any one contested motion. A short, well-documented, merits-focused record — few motions, tight filings, the substantive questions (custody, support, division) brought to the front — is the procedural counterpart to a high-volume file.
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.