Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Kevin Davis Wickless

Firm Juris No. 425729 · New London Judicial District (KNO), CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (31 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 single-attorney, single-district practice with a moderate motion rate but a heavy overall filing load — and the load lands hardest on opponents who already have a lawyer. This firm's volume is its defining feature, concentrated in one district with a familiar bench and a clean procedural posture.

How they litigate (the style)

This is a one-attorney shop working almost entirely in one district (KNO). Three markers define the style:

• Continuances are a routine tool — ~0.61 per case (19 total). They are the firm's single most-filed motion type. Timelines tend to stretch, and delay appears as a default lever rather than an exception.
• Discovery pressure runs through ~0.52 of their cases (16 discovery motions). More than half of their contested cases see a discovery motion. The process itself often becomes a focal point before the merits arrive.
• Contempt and modification round out the toolkit — ~0.32 contempt (10) and ~0.26 modification (8) per case. Contempt and post-judgment activity show up often enough to be a recognizable part of the pattern, especially after a judgment enters.

Adding the ex parte custody filings (4 emergency ex parte applications, ~0.13 per case) rounds out the picture: a practice that escalates quickly when it does.

The filing volume — and where it concentrates

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~12.3 filings on the docket per case (382 filings across 31 cases). The volume is not evenly distributed:

• The heaviest paper load lands on represented opponents. Against a represented opponent: 15.27 filings/case. Against a self-represented opponent: 9.56 filings/case. Unlike some shops, this firm files more when there is a lawyer on the other side and less against the unrepresented.
• The highest filing counts on record: Johnson v. Nelms (KNO-FA19-6104951-S) — 32 filings (the firm's high); Brouwer v. Brouwer (KNO-FA21-6106570-S) — 31 filings (opponent self-represented); Clink v. Clink (KNO-FA19-6104762-S) — 22 filings; Morrison v. Morrison (KNO-FA23-6109217-S) — 22 filings; Robertson v. Berkman (KNO-FA22-6108405-S) — 21 filings.

The per-case average against a self-represented opponent is lower — but a single contested case can still see 30-plus filings, as Brouwer shows. The lower average reflects distribution, not a ceiling; the firm's highest filing counts appear in cases that ran the longest.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A guardian ad litem appears in only ~6.5% of their cases (2 of 31) — below what one might expect from a custody-heavy practice. GAL involvement is the exception here, not the rule, even though the firm does occasionally move for appointment.
• There is no reportable pattern of the firm repeatedly pairing with the same guardians ad litem in this sample.

When a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings and reputation are matters of public record that can be researched. An appointment order that defines scope, budget, and a reporting deadline up front is the mechanism that bounds what an open-ended GAL appointment otherwise leaves uncapped in cost and risk.

The bench

They appear most before Hon. Kenneth Shluger (11) and Hon. Matthew Necci (11), then Hon. Susan Connors (5) and Hon. James Devine (3) — a small, familiar bench within a single district. Familiarity with a handful of judges is a real edge: a firm that appears before the same judges repeatedly tends to know each one's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That information — each judge's standing orders and motion practice — is publicly available, which is what narrows the familiarity gap for a self-represented opponent.

What to expect — and your procedural options

The decided-motion sample here is too small to report a reliable contested-motion win rate, so no motion in this profile should be read as a likely winner or loser on paper. The items below describe the patterns above and the procedural tools that correspond to each, as general information.

1. The clock and continuances. Continuances are this firm's #1 filing (19; ~0.61/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. Each continuance is something the filing party has to justify to the court.

1. Discovery activity. Discovery motions touch ~0.52 of their cases (16 total). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented response record is what shows which party complied. Where discovery requests are overbroad, a motion for protective order is the corresponding procedural tool.

1. Contempt — especially post-judgment. Post-judgment contempt is their #3 filing (6), and contempt markers appear in ~0.32 of cases. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail on the record.

1. Reopening judgments. They file Motions to Open and Modify Judgment (5), and modification markers appear in ~0.26 of cases. A "final" judgment is not necessarily the end of activity with this firm; records and compliance documentation remain relevant well past the decree.

1. Filing volume and representation. Their heaviest paper loads land on represented opponents (15.27 filings/case vs 9.56 against pro se), and their single-case high is 32 filings (Johnson v. Nelms). A short, merits-focused record and a high filing count are two different things; the volume pattern is a feature of this firm's practice, not a benchmark an opponent has to match.

1. Fast escalation. They have used the Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody application (4 times; ~0.13/case). Where custody is contested, safety and parenting evidence is the foundation an ex parte application is decided on; a party served with an ex parte order is generally entitled to a prompt full hearing on the record.

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; the decided-motion sample here is too small to report a rate, and 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.