Opposing-Counsel Playbook: DIFRANCESCA & STEELE PC

Firm Juris No. 015363 · New London Judicial District (KNO) · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (29 contested cases) — treat rates 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 small, single-district firm with a moderate motion rate. The defining features of this firm's practice are not raw volume — they are fees, the continuance clock, and pendente lite positioning.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is fee leverage + clock control + early pendente lite positioning. Three numbers define them:

• Counsel-fee pressure in roughly every case (30 fee markers across 29 cases, ~1.03 per case). They routinely put fees on the table. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the recurring pressure point: the prospect that litigating may carry a fee exposure.
• Continuances as a near-default (26 continuance markers, ~0.90 per case; Motion for Continuance is their single most-filed motion at 25). They work the calendar — stretching timelines is a recurring feature of the practice.
• Early pendente lite positioning (Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite filed 19 times, their #2 motion). They move to set temporary orders early, which frames support, custody, and possession before the merits are reached.

Secondary markers fill in the picture: GAL-appointment activity (17 markers), contempt (10), and discovery motions (10). This is a fee-and-timeline practice more than a motion-flood practice.

The filing volume — and where it concentrates

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~13.3 filings on the docket per case — a moderate load, not an overwhelming one. The distribution by opponent type is essentially flat:

• Represented opponents see slightly more paper. Against a represented opponent: 13.65 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 12.75 filings/case. Unlike firms whose volume rises against the unrepresented, here the load is roughly even — being self-represented does not, in this dataset, correlate with a heavier filing load.
• The highest filing counts on record: Farmer v. Farmer (KNO-FA20-6106274-S) — 25 filings (opponent pro se); Brown v. Brown (KNO-FA22-6107377-S) — 25 filings; Walenczyk v. Walenczyk (KNO-FA19-5107196-S) — 24 filings (opponent pro se).

In this dataset, self-represented opponents do not draw a heavier filing load by volume — though the fee and continuance patterns described below appear across the sample regardless of representation.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL was present in 0% of the docketed cases in this sample (0 of 29 by the present-marker count), even though GAL-appointment activity appears as a marker in 17 instances. On this record, the firm does not show a pattern of cases proceeding with a seated guardian ad litem.
• No repeat-GAL pairing is reportable from this data.

Context: When a GAL is appointed, the appointment order is what defines the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting timeline. An appointment order that leaves those terms unspecified leaves the associated cost and scope open-ended.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Kenneth Shluger (9) more than any other judge, then Cecil Thomas (6), James Devine (5), James Spallone (4), and John Newson (3). This is a firm that works a familiar New London bench. Familiarity with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is part of the local-litigation picture; that familiarity is documented in the assigned judge's published standing orders.

What to expect — and your procedural options

The patterns in this firm's record cluster around fee, clock, and pendente lite leverage rather than the merits. The notes below describe what each pattern is and what procedural tools and rules exist around it. They are descriptive information, not directions for any specific case.

1. Fee leverage — what it is. Counsel-fee pressure shows up in roughly every case (~1.03 fee markers/case). In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). The litigation-conduct factor is what lets a court consider which party's own motion and continuance activity drove up cost.

1. The continuance clock — and the tool that addresses it. Motion for Continuance is their #1 filing (25), and continuance markers hit ~0.90/case. A continuance can be opposed on the record, and a Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner. Each is a mechanism that exists within the rules for managing the calendar.

1. The pendente lite frame — what it does. Their #2 motion is Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite (19). Temporary orders tend to set the gravity for the whole case. A pendente lite hearing is the point at which proposed orders, a financial affidavit, and supporting documentation are placed before the court; an unanswered PL motion is what leaves the baseline defined by one side alone.

1. The discovery basis for sanctions — how it arises. With Motion to Compel among their filings (4) and 10 discovery markers, the non-compliance question is a recurring theme. Responding to discovery completely and on time, with a documented record of each response, is what removes a non-compliance basis for compel motions and related fee arguments.

1. Contempt — what makes it stick or fail. Contempt activity appears 10 times across the sample (and Contempt Post-Judgment is a filed motion type). A contempt finding turns on proof of non-compliance; contemporaneous records of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) are what a court weighs against such a motion.

1. Volume is not the defining feature here. At 2.45 motions/case, this firm's volume is not the standout feature of its practice — the fee, clock, and pendente lite patterns are. The substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are decided on the merits, distinct from the procedural posture that the patterns above describe.

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 where the decided-motion sample is too small no rate is reported. 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.