Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Harris Harris & Schmid
Firm Juris No. 417877 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (25 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) | 25 | A small-volume but active contested-family docket |
| Home turf | Bridgeport (FBT): 9 and Stamford/Norwalk (FST): 9, then Waterbury (4), New Haven (2), Hartford (1) | A two-county practice split across lower and coastal Fairfield |
| Side they take | 17 plaintiff / 8 defendant | Files first more than twice as often — tends to set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 5.48 | A motion-active style — they litigate through the motion calendar |
| Contested-motion grant rate | ~81% (22 granted vs 5 denied) | When they put a fight on the record, they usually win it — but see the caveat below |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Jane Emons (7), then Dembo (5), Gould (4) | They appear repeatedly before a handful of judges |
Bottom line: a motion-active firm that wins most of what it files, but on a modest sample. The defining feature of this firm's record is procedural volume; the decided-motion sample that produces the grant rate is small.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is clock control + contempt pressure + discovery friction. Three markers define them:
- Continuances are their most common move — 28 across the docket (1.12 per case). They control timing. The calendar tends to stretch when it suits their client and to compress when it doesn't.
- Contempt is a frontline filing, not a last resort — 23 contempt-related filings (0.92 per case), spread across pendente lite and post-judgment. Allegations that an opponent violated an order appear early and often in this firm's cases.
- Discovery generates heavy motion practice — 22 discovery motions (0.88 per case), plus 6 discovery objections. The process tends to become expensive and time-consuming before the merits are reached.
Layer on 15 counsel-fee mentions (0.6 per case) and the model is complete: a stretched timeline, frequent contempt and discovery filings, and a live fee question, so that litigating against them tends to carry a cost.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~19.7 filings on the docket per case (492 total). The volume is not evenly distributed:
- They file more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 22.54 filings/case (13 cases). Against a represented opponent: 16.58/case (12 cases). The party least equipped to respond receives the heavier paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 36% more filings than one with a lawyer.
- The heaviest barrage on record: Mesniaeff v. Burke (FST-FA10-4021756-S) — 93 filings, against a pro-se opponent (the firm's all-time high on this docket). Then Gonzalez v. Gonzalez-DeCarlo (FBT-FA19-6086735-S) — 43; Pelliccio v. Pelliccio (NNH-FA24-6150070-S) — 38.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Mesniaeff v. Burke (FST-FA10-4021756-S) — 93 filings; Carcamo v. Elgueta (FST-FA23-5028550-S) — 36; Wedderburn Walker v. Walker (FBT-FA24-5055844-S) — 28; Dufort v. Gilles (UWY-FA25-6083561-S) — 26; Cuaya v. Lara-Lopez (FBT-FA25-6150528-S) — 22. Dozens of filings each, in cases where the opponent had no attorney.
For a self-represented party, the data indicates that the unrepresented opponent is the profile that draws the firm's highest filing volume — the procedural options described below speak to exactly that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 27 | Controls the clock |
| Objection to Motion | 16 | Reflexive resistance — they oppose opponents' motions on the record |
| Motion to Compel | 12 | Discovery-driven — a frequent opening filing |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 10 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Order Pendente Lite | 6 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Pendente Lite Orders Including Custody | 5 | Custody leverage early in the case |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 5 | Keeps the pressure on after judgment |
| Motion for Exclusive Use of Premises | 5 | Disputes over the home |
GAL strategy
- A guardian ad litem appears in 0% of this firm's cases on record (0 of 25) — even though the firm moves for GAL appointment 13 times (0.52 per case, with custody-pendente-lite motions filed as well). The pattern is to raise GAL appointment as a lever in custody fights, but the docket does not record a GAL actually seated in these cases. There are no recurring GAL pairings to report.
Procedural context: when a GAL is proposed, the appointment order is the instrument that can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment is, by its nature, an open-ended cost and an open-ended commitment. The infrequency of a GAL actually being seated in this firm's cases (0 of 25) is itself a matter of record.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Jane Emons (7 rulings) more than any other judge, then Dembo (5), Gould (4), DeCastro-Tunnard (4), and Grispin (4). Their grant rate is partly familiarity — repeated appearances build knowledge of the judges' preferences and motion-practice habits. That familiarity gap narrows for any party who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a motion-active firm, the record shows where the procedural activity concentrates. The notes below describe the relevant rules and tools and what each pattern is — they are information, not instructions, and each maps to a specific pattern above:
- The clock. Continuances are the firm's single most common filing (27; 1.12 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. The effect of these tools is to make delay something that has to be justified rather than the default.
- Contempt filings. With 23 contempt filings (0.92 per case), a contempt allegation is a recurring feature of this firm's cases. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the documentation that a contempt motion is measured against; a contempt motion that is not supported by the record tends to fail, which is itself a credibility factor before judges the firm appears in front of repeatedly.
- Discovery practice. The firm's discovery motion practice runs on motions to compel (12) and discovery objections (6). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions or a motion to compel. Where discovery demands are overbroad, a motion for protective order is the corresponding procedural tool. A documented, on-time response record is what establishes which party is the compliant one.
- The filing asymmetry. Pro-se opponents draw 22.54 filings/case versus 16.58 for represented ones. For a self-represented party, the volume itself is the defining feature of the case. A docket-tracking system, calendared deadlines, and a response to each filing are the basic mechanics that keep pace with a high filing count.
- Counsel fees. The firm keeps counsel fees a live issue (15 mentions). In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that §46b-62 considers, so the same activity that drives cost is also part of what a court weighs on a fee question.
- Process versus merits. This firm's volume is its defining feature, and the grant rate, while real, rests on a small decided-motion sample (27 motions). A record built on focused, well-documented filings and the substantive questions (custody, support, division) is the alternative to matching the firm's volume motion for motion.
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 the decided-motion sample here is small. 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.