Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Keith Jason Anthony

Firm Juris No. 426171 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (30 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 smaller-volume practice whose pressure is concentrated, not broad — discovery motions and contempt are the recurring levers in this sample. The patterns that stand out in the record are clean compliance, the docket itself, and procedure.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature in this sample is discovery pressure + contempt leverage + agenda control. Three numbers define them:

• 1.23 discovery motions per case (37 markers) — by far their most common move. Discovery is where the firm's activity concentrates: motions to compel, objections to interrogatories/production, orders of compliance under PB §13-14. The effect is that the process tends to become expensive and time-consuming well before a case reaches the merits.
• 0.67 contempt motions per case (20 markers — 11 post-judgment, 3 pendente lite) — contempt is a routine filing for this firm, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations appear regularly, especially after judgment, where post-judgment contempt is their single most common contempt filing.
• 0.40 continuances per case (12 markers; 12 Motions for Continuance on the docket) — paired with their plaintiff-side tilt, the pattern is one of managing the clock and pace on cases they filed first.

Add a steady stream of counsel-fee requests (0.33 per case, 10 markers) and the picture is a firm whose activity centers on process and cost rather than on sheer motion volume.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~14.8 filings on the docket per case — a substantial paper load for any opponent, and especially for a self-represented one, to track and respond to.

The volume is essentially identical whether the opponent has a lawyer or not: 14.83 filings/case against a pro-se opponent versus 14.78/case against a represented opponent. In other words, the records show no reduction in docket volume for a self-represented opponent — the paper load is the same as for someone with counsel, even though a self-represented party typically has far fewer resources to respond to it.

The heaviest barrages on record (20+ filings):

• Maher Jr. v. Pannone (NNH-FA18-5041440-S) — 45 filings, the firm's heaviest case on record.
• Selmani v. Selmani (NNH-FA21-6117836-S) — 37 filings, against a self-represented opponent.
• Feder v. Weed Feder (NNH-FA23-6137131-S) — 26 filings at the firm's fastest sustained pace (~2.1/month).
• Sowers v. DiPaola (NNH-FA16-5037528-S) — 22 filings.
• Coleman v. Coleman (KNO-FA19-6105004-S) — 22 filings.

The data point worth noting for a self-represented opponent: the docket load in this sample does not shrink when the opposing party lacks a lawyer. The same volume appears on both sides of that line.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL is recorded as present in 0% of their cases (0 of 30) on this docket sample — even though the firm moves for GAL appointment 5 times. In other words, GAL motions appear in the record, but the records here don't show a GAL actually seated, so the data reads as a tool the firm raises rather than one it consistently lands.
• The records show no recurring guardian-ad-litem pairings for this firm in this sample.

What the rules provide: when a GAL is proposed, the appointment order is the document that can define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline. An unscoped GAL appointment is, by its nature, an open-ended cost and an open-ended commitment; a scoped order is what limits it. The court is also the body that decides whether an appointment is warranted in the first place.

The bench

They appear before Hon. John Carbonneau (4 rulings) most often, then Goodrow (3) and Newson (2), with a spread of other judges appearing once each. Their bench is shallow and concentrated in eastern Connecticut. Because no single judge dominates the firm's docket, the familiarity gap is a narrow one — the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice are public and learnable, and there is no single dominant judge they "own."

What to expect — and your procedural options

For a firm whose record concentrates on discovery and contempt, the defining feature of this firm is its volume and where that volume lands. The following describes what each pattern in this sample is, and the neutral procedural tools and rules that correspond to it. None of this is a recommendation about any specific case.

1. The discovery pattern. Discovery is this firm's single most common move (1.23 motions/case). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; where a demand is over-broad, a tight, well-grounded objection is the corresponding procedural response. A docket that shows complete and timely responses is what undercuts a PB §13-14 order-of-compliance motion, because that motion depends on a non-compliance basis to begin with.

1. The contempt pattern — especially post-judgment. Post-judgment contempt (11 filings) is this firm's most common contempt move. A contempt motion turns on proof of compliance with the underlying order; contemporaneous records of compliance (payments, exchanges, communications), kept long after judgment, are the evidence that bears on such a motion.

1. The pendente-lite pattern. With 9 motions for orders before judgment, the firm's record shows early activity to set terms while a case is pending. The pendente lite phase is the window in which those early orders are entered, and orders entered then can become the default that governs the remainder of the case unless revisited.

1. The clock. The firm files 12 continuances and tilts plaintiff-side. 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 the opposing party states the basis for the objection. Either way, a continuance is a request the moving party has to justify to the court.

1. The fee pattern. The firm files counsel-fee requests (0.33/case). 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 the statute makes relevant to a fee determination.

1. The volume, regardless of representation. This firm's docket load is the same against pro-se and represented opponents (~14.8 filings/case either way). The organizational tools that correspond to a high-volume docket are familiar ones: a filing system, a calendar of deadlines, and a record kept focused on the substantive questions (custody, support, division). This firm's volume is its defining feature in the data, and it does not change based on whether the opponent has counsel.

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.