Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Epstein Anne E Law Offices Of LLC
Firm Juris No. 438812 · Connecticut · 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) | 51 | A steady-volume contested-family practice |
| Home turf | New Haven (NNH): 37, then Bridgeport (6), Waterbury (5) | New Haven is overwhelmingly their court |
| Side they take | 24 plaintiff / 27 defendant | Roughly even — they take cases from either chair |
| Motions per case | 6.18 (315 total) | A motion-heavy, attrition style |
| Contested-motion win rate | 87% (88 granted vs 13 denied) | When the firm contests a matter on the record, it usually prevails |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Jane Grossman (26), then Griffin (22), Ficeto (14) | They appear before the New Haven bench frequently |
Bottom line: a motion-aggressive firm that wins most of what it files in front of judges it appears before constantly. The 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 clock control + contempt pressure + discovery friction. Three numbers define them:
- 2.06 continuances per case (105 total; 100 motions for continuance — their single most-filed motion by far). The timeline is a recurring focus of their practice. The calendar tends to stretch, and that stretch tends to weigh on the side that needs resolution most.
- 1.33 contempt motions per case (68 total — 37 of them post-judgment) — contempt is a frequently-filed motion for this firm, not a last resort. Contempt allegations commonly appear early, often, and even after judgment.
- 1.29 discovery motions per case (66 total, including 6 motions to compel) — discovery is an active front in their cases, which tends to make the process expensive and time-consuming before the merits are reached.
Add 1.0 modification mention per case (51) and 0.84 counsel-fee mentions per case (43), and the full picture emerges: a stretched timeline, sustained contempt and discovery activity, and ongoing fee motions are the recurring elements of how this firm's contested cases tend to unfold.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~23.9 filings on the docket per case (1,218 total). The volume is not evenly distributed:
- Filing volume runs higher against unrepresented opponents, not lower. Against a pro-se opponent: 25.5 filings/case (27 cases). Against a represented opponent: 22.0/case (24 cases). The heaviest paper load lands on the party least equipped to respond to it.
- The heaviest barrages on record — all against self-represented opponents: Limosani v. Colonari (NNH-FA20-6100343-S) — 72 filings, pro se; Crawford v. Smith (HHB-FA22-6083829-S) — 70 filings, pro se; Gorman v. Morfitt (FST-FA18-6035012-S) — 59 filings, pro se.
- Heaviest against represented opponents: Brodzik v. Brodzik (NNH-FA16-6060969-S) — 52 filings; Elefant v. Elefant (UWY-FA16-6032252-S) — 47 filings.
This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket itself accumulates volume. A self-represented party fits the profile that, in this firm's history, tends to receive the heaviest filing volume — which is the context the procedural-options section below addresses.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 100 | Controls the clock — their signature move |
| Motion for Contempt (Post-Judgment) | 37 | Shifts the responding party onto defense; builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Order | 29 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 15 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody fights |
| Motion for Order of Notice | 12 | Service / procedural setup |
| Objection to Motion | 11 | Aims to blunt an opponent's motions before they're heard |
| Motion for Alimony/Custody/Child Support | 8 | Core relief package |
| Motion for Orders Pendente Lite | 7 | Locks in interim terms early |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 23.5% of their cases (12 of 51), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 15 times (33 GAL-appointment markers overall). They use GALs as a custody lever, not a neutral afterthought.
- Repeat GAL pairings: the firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (4 appearances each). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that recurrence is part of the public record.
Context: When a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket history. The appointment order is the document that defines a GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an order that leaves those terms undefined leaves the cost and the role open-ended.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Jane Grossman (26 appearances) more than any other judge, then Hon. Christopher Griffin (22), Hon. Anna Ficeto (14), Hon. Karen Goodrow (9), and Hon. Anthony Truglia (8). Their 87% contested-motion win rate reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances before the same judges. A judge's standing orders and motion practice are public, and that familiarity gap tends to narrow for a party who learns the assigned judge's procedures.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This firm files roughly 6 motions per case in an attrition style. The following six points describe the procedural rules and tools that correspond to each pattern above — what the tools are, and what the pattern is, as general information.
- The clock. Continuances are this firm's single most-filed motion (100; 2.06 per 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. Where delay is at issue, these are the mechanisms the rules provide for addressing it.
- Contempt motions. With 1.33 contempt motions per case — most of them post-judgment — contempt activity is a recurring feature, and it can arise long after a matter appears settled. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the documentation that a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion unsupported by the record is one a court can deny.
- Discovery. With 1.29 discovery motions per case, discovery is an active front. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A protective motion is the procedural tool available when a discovery demand is overbroad; a documented, timely response is what establishes a compliant record.
- Counsel fees. This firm raises counsel fees regularly (43 mentions). In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that informs a fee analysis — for either side.
- Filing volume. This firm's side puts ~25.5 filings on the docket against pro-se opponents — more than against represented ones. A clean, indexed filing record and responses directed to substance are how a party keeps a high-volume docket organized. The cases on record show how large such a docket can become.
- GAL appointments. A GAL appears in nearly a quarter of this firm's cases, and the firm reuses a small rotation of the same guardians. A proposed GAL's prior pairings are part of the public record, and the appointment order is where scope, budget, and reporting deadlines are set or left open.
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. 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.