Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Faccadio Lisa A PC

Firm Juris No. 412109 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (27 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 high-volume-per-case solo firm whose filed motions are granted most of the time. The defining features of this firm's record are filing volume, control of the timeline, and use of procedure.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is discovery pressure + clock control + contempt activity. Three rates define them:

• 2.1 discovery motions per case (56 total) — motions to compel (7), compliance motions under PB §13-14, and related discovery papers. Discovery is the firm's main area of activity. The effect is to make the process expensive and demanding before the matter reaches the merits.
• 1.5 continuances per case (41 total; 40 separate motions for continuance, the single most common filing) — the firm is active in managing the timeline. Timelines in these matters tend to stretch.
• 0.96 contempt motions per case (26 total — post-judgment, pendente lite, and general) — contempt is a routine filing for this firm, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations are common in these cases.

Add 0.70 counsel-fee requests per case (19 total) and the full picture emerges: active discovery, an extended timeline, frequent contempt filings, and the fee question kept open over the course of the case.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~21.4 filings on the docket per case — a heavy paper load for a solo practice. The volume is roughly even by representation status:

• Against a represented opponent: 22.5 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 20.2 filings/case. The gap is small here — unlike some firms, the record does not show visible escalation against the unrepresented. But 20+ filings is still a substantial load for someone without a lawyer.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Ianni v. Ianni (HHB-FA15-6029914-S) — 62 filings (the firm's all-time high, opponent pro se); Marchese v. Napolitano (HHB-FA22-6072445-S) — 48; Down-Lyons v. Lyons (HHD-FA18-6090462-S) — 42.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Ianni v. Ianni (HHB-FA15-6029914-S) — 62 filings (pro se); Klink v. Gibbons (NNH-FA22-6125319-S) — 33 (pro se); Scheer v. Scheer (HHB-FA17-5018361-S) — 22 (pro se). Dozens of filings appear in matters where the opponent had no attorney.

For a self-represented opponent, the record reflects that a sustained, multi-year volume of filings is possible in matters involving this firm. The sections below describe what tends to appear on the docket and the procedural rules and tools that exist in response.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in only ~3.7% of their cases (1 of 27) — well below the contested-firm norm, and the firm moves for GAL appointment infrequently. On this record, the guardian-ad-litem is not a signature lever for this firm.
• Because the GAL footprint is so small, there is no reliable recurring-pairing pattern to report. Any GAL proposal would turn on its own facts.

Context: when a GAL is appointed, the appointment order is the document that can define scope, budget, and reporting timeline. An appointment order without those limits leaves the cost and the role open-ended — which is why scope, budget, and a reporting deadline are common subjects when a GAL appointment is contested.

The bench

They appear before a tight rotation — Abery-Wetstone, Morgan, Connors, and Nastri (11 appearances each), then Armata (10) and Carbonneau (7), concentrated in the HHB and HHD districts. Their 81% grant rate is partly familiarity — a solo who appears before the same judges repeatedly tends to know each one's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. An opponent familiar with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is working from the same information set.

What to expect — and your procedural options

The record shows a discovery-and-clock-intensive practice. The items below describe what tends to appear on the docket and the procedural rules and tools that exist in response — as information, not as a recommendation in any particular case.

1. The discovery picture. At 2.1 discovery motions per case, motions to compel and PB §13-14 compliance motions are common early filings. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a complete, documented response record is what establishes which party complied. Compliance is also relevant to how a court weighs the fee question.

1. The timeline. Continuances are this firm's single most common filing (40), at ~1.5 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, in which case the moving party must justify the delay. These are the rules that govern the pace of a matter.

1. Contempt activity. With ~1 contempt motion per case (26 total, including 8 post-judgment), contempt filings are common in these matters, frequently after judgment. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a contempt motion is tested against; a motion that is not supported by the documents tends not to succeed, and its outcome is on the record before the same set of judges.

1. The fee question. With 19 counsel-fee requests on record, fee-shifting requests are a recurring feature. Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's documentation of the overall motion volume and continuances is part of the litigation-conduct record the court may consider under that standard.

1. The house. This firm moves for exclusive use of premises (6) more than most. Evidence on use, safety, and the children's stability is the type of record an exclusive-possession motion is decided on; that record is typically assembled early in matters where the marital home is in dispute.

1. The merits. This firm's record is volume-heavy: 21+ filings per case, with 81% of decided motions granted. This firm's volume is its defining feature. Filing volume is one feature of a docket; the substantive questions in a family matter (custody, support, division) are decided on their own record.

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, and with only 43 decided motions this rate is indicative, not definitive. 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.