Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Jennifer Susanne Aguilar

Firm Juris No. 430262 · 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

Bottom line: a plaintiff-side firm that files first, runs a modification-and-contempt pressure cycle, and is granted most of what it puts before the bench. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the procedural record and the merits are where a contested motion is decided.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is file-first plaintiff posture + a modification/contempt cycle + frequent fee-waiver and continuance mechanics. Three numbers define them:

• 1.14 modification motions per case (64 total) — the single most common marker. This reflects a post-judgment-pressure practice: support and custody terms are reopened repeatedly, which keeps a matter in active litigation. The fight rarely ends at judgment.
• 1.05 contempt motions per case (59 total — 19 post-judgment, plus general contempt) — contempt is a primary, frequently-filed motion here, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations tend to appear early and often, and on the record.
• 0.59 continuances per case (33 total) — the firm makes regular use of scheduling mechanics. Combined with heavy use of fee-waiver and order-of-notice motions, the picture is a firm whose filing activity keeps the docket moving on its own schedule.

Add a notable ex parte emergency posture — 10 applications for emergency ex parte orders of custody (0.18/case) — and the profile is a firm that moves quickly and one-sided when seeking leverage in a custody fight.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~15.3 filings on the docket per case. But the volume is not evenly distributed:

• The firm files more against represented opponents on average — yet the heaviest individual barrages all landed on people with no lawyer. Against a represented opponent: 20.0 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 15.2/case. The averages run heavier when there is a lawyer on the other side, yet every one of the firm's all-time heaviest cases was against a self-represented opponent.
• The heaviest barrages on record (all against pro-se opponents):
• KAF v. Soliman (NNH-FA14-4062659-S) — 89 filings (the firm's all-time high), against a pro-se opponent
• Mahon v. Grant (FST-FA12-4024448-S) — 86 filings, pro se
• Regis v. Mason (NNH-FA15-4064564-S) — 84 filings, pro se
• Baronio v. Stubbs (NNH-FA15-4064183-S) — 69 filings, pro se
• Skeirik v. Clark (NNH-FA13-4058404-S) — 56 filings, pro se

When this firm grinds a case, the docket volume itself becomes the defining feature of the litigation — and the record shows the people on the receiving end of the largest paper loads had no attorney. Self-represented opponents historically fall within that target profile; the section below describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern above.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 12.5% of their cases (7 of 56), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment in a smaller share (5 appointment markers). GAL use here is selective — concentrated in the custody fights where a third decision-maker is in play.
• The firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (one recurring GAL appears 4 times across these cases). A repeated firm-and-GAL pairing is a pattern worth being aware of going in.

What the record shows: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with this firm are part of the public docket. The appointment order is the document that defines a GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped appointment leaves cost and risk open-ended. A party may ask the court to appoint a GAL from outside any recurring rotation, and may ask that the appointment order define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Karen Goodrow (34 rulings) more than any other judge, then Tindill (23), Emons (18), Pinkus (13), Dolan and Munro (10 each). Their 79% contested-motion grant rate is partly familiarity — repeated appearances give a firm working knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. Each judge's standing orders and motion practice are part of the public record, and familiarity with them is something a self-represented party can develop over time.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a file-first, modification-and-contempt firm, the patterns above each correspond to a defined procedural tool or rule. The descriptions below explain what each pattern is and what the corresponding rule does — they are informational, not recommendations.

1. The modification cycle. The firm's most common move is the modification motion (1.14/case). Under Connecticut law, a modification requires a substantial change in circumstances; that threshold is a question the moving party bears the burden of proving. A modification that does not satisfy the threshold does not reach the merits of the underlying terms.

1. The contempt pattern. With ~1.05 contempt motions per case (many post-judgment), a contempt allegation is a frequently-filed motion here. Contemporaneous documentation of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidentiary record against which a contempt motion is tested. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to undercut the moving party's credibility with the judges before whom the firm appears regularly.

1. The ex parte custody move. The firm filed 10 applications for emergency ex parte custody orders. Ex parte relief is granted on one side's papers; Connecticut procedure provides for a prompt hearing at which both sides are heard, which is the point at which the one-sided posture is tested on a full record.

1. Scheduling mechanics. The firm averages ~0.59 continuances per case and uses order-of-notice and fee-waiver mechanics. 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 mechanisms by which scheduling questions are raised before the court.

1. GAL scope. See the GAL section above. The firm reuses a small set of GALs; the proposed name's prior pairings are part of the public docket, and the appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline are defined.

1. Process versus merits. The firm's model centers on litigation volume — file first, reopen often, file contempt. This firm's volume is its defining feature, and a focused, merits-oriented record stands in contrast to it. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions, and a tight, documented record is what keeps the substantive questions (custody, support, division) in front of the court.

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.