Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Hassett & George PC
Firm Juris No. 407894 · 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) | 72 | A steady-volume contested-divorce shop |
| Home turf | Hartford (HHD): 39, then New Britain (HHB): 15, Tolland (KNO): 7 | The Hartford-area courts are their base |
| Side they take | 45 plaintiff / 27 defendant | Files first more often than not, which tends to set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 5.19 | A motion-active style; the docket is a working tool, not a last resort |
| Contested-motion win rate | 85% (91 granted vs 16 denied) | When a contested motion reaches a ruling, it is usually granted |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Leo Diana (38), then Armata (19), Olear (16) | They appear before the Hartford-region bench frequently |
Bottom line: a focused, motion-active firm that is granted most of what it files in front of judges it appears before constantly. The recurring themes in the data are focus, the record, and procedure.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + fee leverage + clock control. Three numbers define them:
- 2.57 discovery motions per case (185 total) — discovery is where much of the activity concentrates. The pattern tends to make the process expensive and time-consuming before a case reaches the merits.
- 1.5 counsel-fee references per case (108 total) — fee-shifting is routinely placed in play, asking the court to make the other side pay. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable pressure point: continued litigation can carry a cost-shifting risk.
- 1.71 continuances per case (123 total) — continuances appear as a standard tool, not an exception. The timeline often stretches as a result.
Add 0.86 contempt motions per case (62 total) and the full picture emerges: a discovery and contempt record, a running fee question, and control of the clock are recurring features of how this firm's cases unfold.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~22.3 filings on the docket per case. But the volume is not evenly distributed:
- They file more against represented opponents than pro-se ones. Against a represented opponent: 25.52 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 17.77 filings/case. The heavier paper goes where there is a lawyer on the other side — but a self-represented spouse still faces an average of roughly 18 filings, often with no counsel to answer them.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Tilsen v. Benson (NNH-FA18-6084187-S) — 98 filings (the firm's all-time high); Keenan v. Keenan (HHD-FA23-6170338-S) — 69; Kurtulus Hinson v. Hinson (HHD-FA19-6105761-S) — 65.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Reigeluth v. Reigeluth (NNH-FA03-0481941-S) — 61 filings (pro se); Dabkowski v. Dabkowski (HHD-FA14-4072447-S) — 46 (pro se); Plunske v. Plunske (NNH-FA24-6142876-S) — 38 (pro se). Dozens of filings aimed at someone with no attorney.
For a self-represented party, the docket volume itself is a defining feature of the litigation. The section below describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each of these patterns.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 112 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Order | 39 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Objection to Motion | 34 | Blocks an opponent's moves on the record |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite | 22 | Locks in early temporary terms |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 22 | Keeps the pressure on after the decree |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 19 | Puts the other side on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion to Compel | 10 | Discovery activity |
| Motion for Custody of Minor Children PL | 7 | Custody lever early in the case |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in only ~2.8% of their cases (2 of 72). On this record, a guardian ad litem is not a routine part of how this firm operates — it is the rare exception, not a default custody lever. The data does not show a recurring set of the same guardians.
Context: because a GAL is out of pattern for this firm, an appointment in one of its cases would be an atypical event relative to the docket history. Under Connecticut practice, an appointment order can define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped appointment leaves cost and duration open-ended.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Leo Diana (38 rulings) far more than any other judge, then Armata (19), Olear (16), Grossman (11), and Abery-Wetstone (9). Their 85% contested-motion win rate is partly familiarity — repeated appearances mean exposure to each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. A self-represented opponent who reviews the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice has access to the same published information.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a motion-active discovery firm, the relevant question is which procedural tools and rules correspond to each observed pattern. The items below describe those tools — what they are and what they do — rather than recommending any course of action in a specific case.
- Discovery responses and the non-compliance question. At 2.57 discovery motions per case, discovery is where much of the firm's activity concentrates. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, timely response record is what a court looks to on that question. When a discovery demand is overbroad, a targeted objection or a protective motion are the procedural tools for narrowing it.
- The contempt record. With contempt motions in roughly 0.86 of every case (62 total, split across post-judgment and pendente-lite), a contempt motion is a recurring feature of this firm's cases. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order — payments, exchanges, communications — is what a court weighs against a contempt allegation. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents is unlikely to succeed.
- Fee-shifting under Connecticut law. With 1.5 fee references per case, fee-shifting is routinely in play. Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct under C.G.S. §46b-62. Motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record a court may consider when ruling on a fee request.
- Continuances and the Motion to Advance. They average 1.71 continuances per case — Motion for Continuance (112) is their single most-filed motion type. A continuance can be opposed on the record. A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner. These are the two mechanisms by which the scheduling of a case is contested.
- Represented vs. self-represented filing volume. The data shows 25.52 filings/case against represented opponents versus 17.77 against pro-se ones. A represented party tends to draw a heavier paper load; a self-represented party still faces roughly 18 filings on average. In either posture, a system for tracking filings and deadlines is what keeps a high-volume docket organized.
- Volume vs. the merits. At 5.19 motions per case, this firm's volume is its defining feature; the activity concentrates on the process. The merits questions in a family case — custody, support, division — are decided on their own record before judges like Diana and Armata. A short, documented, merits-focused record is the counterpart to a high-volume procedural one.
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.