Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Dori-Ellen Scheckner Feltman
Firm Juris No. 427177 · Fairfield County, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (46 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
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 46 | A focused, mid-volume contested-divorce practice |
| Home turf | Stamford/Norwalk (FST): 20, then Bridgeport (15), Danbury (6) | Lower Fairfield County is their court |
| Side they take | 26 plaintiff / 20 defendant | Files first a bit more often than not — leans toward setting the agenda |
| Motions per case | 10.04 | A motion-heavy, attrition style |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 82% (110 granted vs 24 denied, 134 decided) | When they take a motion to a ruling, it is usually granted |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Anthony Truglia (24), then Heller (19), Adelman (16) | They appear regularly before the lower-Fairfield bench |
Bottom line: a motion-aggressive firm that wins most of what it takes to a ruling, in front of judges it appears before regularly. The firm's volume is its defining feature; focus, the record, and procedure are the variables that distinguish how individual cases unfold.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + fee leverage + clock control. Three rates define them:
- 5.3 discovery-related motions per case (245 total) — motions to compel (35), protective orders (10 + 7 under PB 13-5), plus a steady stream of discovery-extension motions. Discovery is the main battlefield. The pattern tends to make the process expensive and exhausting before a case reaches the merits.
- 3.6 counsel-fee items per case (167 mentions; 7 fee motions pendente lite) — they routinely put fee-shifting on the table. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the pressure point: the prospect that litigating may carry a cost.
- 2.8 continuances per case (131; "Motion for Continuance" is their single most-filed motion at 122) — they manage the clock aggressively. The pattern is to stretch the timeline and keep matters open.
Add 1.5 contempt motions per case (70 total — 43 post-judgment, 9 pendente lite) and the full picture emerges: heavy discovery and contempt filings, active calendar management, and fee leverage kept live through the life of the case.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~32.4 filings on the docket per case (1,491 total). The volume is not evenly distributed:
- Against a represented opponent: 33.95 filings/case. Against a self-represented (pro-se) opponent: 26.11/case. Even the lighter pro-se load is a heavy paper burden for someone with no attorney — roughly 26 filings to track, answer, and respond to alone.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Spraker v. Spraker (FST-FA22-6059008-S) — 174 filings (the firm's all-time high in this sample); Mihan v. Mihan (FBT-FA17-5033043-S) — 110; Dillon v. Dillon (FST-FA17-6031016-S) — 98; Smith v. Smith (FST-FA18-4030742-S) — 98.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Day v. Day (NNH-FA18-6084454-S) — 58 filings; Shields v. Shields (FST-FA21-6049687-S) — 41; Raboy v. Solovey (FBT-FA23-6121262-S) — 33; Fletcher v. Fletcher (FST-FA16-5015491-S) — 27; Casablancas v. Casablancas (DBD-FA20-6036930-S) — 21. Dozens of filings aimed at parties with no attorney.
If you are self-represented, the docket volume itself is a recurring feature of how this firm operates — the section below describes what to expect from that asymmetry and the procedural options that exist within it.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 122 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Order | 48 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 43 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion to Compel | 35 | Discovery war — opening salvo |
| Objection to Motion | 22 | Blunts an opponent's filings |
| Motion for Extension of Time | 20 | Buys time on their terms |
| Motion for Protective Order (incl. PB 13-5) | 17 | Shields their client's disclosure while compelling the opponent's |
| Motion to Reargue/Reconsider | 10 | Re-litigates rulings that don't go their way |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 13% of their cases (6 of 46), and the firm moves for GAL appointment 28 times across its docket. GALs feature as a custody lever rather than a neutral afterthought — but on this sample there is no reportable pattern of the firm repeatedly pairing with the same small set of guardians ad litem.
When a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior involvement in this firm's cases is a matter of public record that can be researched. As a general matter, an appointment order may define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment represents an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Anthony Truglia (24) more than any other judge, then Heller (19), Adelman (16), Moses (15), Kowalski (13), and Colin (13). Their high grant rate is partly familiarity — they appear before these judges often and know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. That familiarity gap is narrower for a self-represented party who has learned the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a ~10-motions-per-case attrition firm, this firm's volume is its defining feature. The items below describe the patterns to expect and the procedural tools that exist in relation to each, framed as information rather than instruction.
- The discovery war. Discovery motions are this firm's largest category (5.3/case — compel, protective orders, extensions). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, timely response record is what establishes which party is compliant. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use in response to demands it regards as overbroad. A record of compliance is the factual basis that bears on a fee argument.
- The contempt pattern. With 1.5 contempt motions per case (43 post-judgment), a contempt motion is a common feature of this firm's docket. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the documentary record against which a contempt motion is measured. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail, and the credibility effect of a failed motion is felt before a judge the firm appears before regularly.
- The fee leverage. With 3.6 fee items per case, fee-shifting is routinely placed on the table. Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A firm's own motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that bears on what is driving cost.
- Clock control. Continuances are this firm's single most-filed motion (122; 2.8/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. These are the two procedural mechanisms that relate to the pace of a case.
- The GAL question. A GAL appears in 13% of cases and the firm moves for appointment often. The proposed name's history with this firm is a matter of public record; an appointment order is the document in which scope, budget, and a reporting deadline can be defined.
- Process versus merits. This firm's model is built on the volume of process — 32 filings per case is its defining feature. A short, merits-focused record is the contrasting posture; the substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are what the merits turn on. This firm's volume is its defining feature, and filing volume on its own does not resolve those substantive questions.
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.