Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Lisa A. Knopf
Firm Juris No. 405242 · Fairfield County, CT · 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) | 120 | A high-volume contested-divorce practice |
| Home turf | Bridgeport (FBT): 97, then Ansonia/Milford (AAN: 14), New Haven (NNH: 5) | The FBT bench is their home court |
| Side they take | 79 plaintiff / 41 defendant | Files first about two-thirds of the time — they tend to set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 4.92 | A motion-active practice that keeps steady pressure on the docket |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 82% (136 granted vs 29 denied; 165 decided) | When a contested motion is decided, it usually goes their way |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Jane Grossman (29), then Truglia (27), Hartley Moore (26) | They appear before the FBT bench frequently |
Bottom line: a single-attorney shop that files heavily, takes the plaintiff's chair, and prevails on most of the contested motions it brings before judges it appears before constantly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the record and procedure are where that volume is most and least relevant.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + fee leverage + a steady contempt drumbeat. Three rates define them:
- 1.78 discovery motions per case (214 total) — discovery is the main battlefield. The pattern makes the process expensive and time-consuming well before a case reaches the merits.
- 1.43 counsel-fee touches per case (172 total) — they routinely put fee-shifting 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.
- 0.93 contempt motions per case (112 total — including 47 post-judgment and 18 pendente lite) — contempt is used as a working tool, not only a last resort. Allegations of violating orders are a recurring feature.
Add 1.21 continuances per case (145) and the pattern is a long timeline with discovery and contempt motions kept in motion while fees accumulate. There is also a measurable ex-parte habit — 0.26 emergency ex-parte custody applications per case (31 total).
The filing barrage — and where it concentrates
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~19.7 filings on the docket per case (2,363 total). The volume is not evenly distributed:
- The firm files more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 22.73 filings/case (49 cases). Against a represented opponent: 17.59/case (71 cases). A self-represented spouse is on the docket with roughly 29% more filings than one with a lawyer.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Mihan v. Mihan (FBT-FA17-5033043-S) — 98 filings (the firm's all-time high); Schultz v. Schultz (FBT-FA15-6049781-S) — 89 (pro se); Ross v. Ross (FBT-FA19-5041986-S) — 89 (pro se).
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Schultz v. Schultz — 89 and Ross v. Ross — 89; Raczkowski v. Raczkowski (FBT-FA21-5046366-S) — 64; Degenhardt v. Degenhardt (NNH-FA21-6113376-S) — 60; Alfano v. Alfano (FBT-FA21-5047273-S) — 60. Dozens of filings in cases involving people with no attorney.
This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket itself carries the pressure, and the load is heaviest in self-represented cases. 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 | 137 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite | 72 | Locks in interim terms early |
| Motion for Order | 55 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 47 | Reopens the fight after judgment |
| Objection to Motion | 43 | Responds to the other side's filings |
| Motion for Contempt | 32 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody | 26 | Custody pressure on short notice |
| Motion to Compel | 20 | Discovery dispute — opening salvo |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 10% of their cases (12 of 120), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 12 times. GALs are a custody lever this firm reaches for in a meaningful minority of contested cases — not only an afterthought when one happens to appear.
- Repeat pairing: the firm repeatedly appears with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (one recurring GAL appears in 3 of their cases). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that history is a matter of public record.
For context: a party who is offered a proposed GAL can research that name's prior pairings with this firm in the public docket. The appointment order is where the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline are defined; an order that leaves those undefined leaves the engagement open-ended in both cost and duration.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Jane Grossman (29) more than any other judge, then Truglia (27), Hartley Moore (26), Dembo (23), Moses (16), Kowalski (14), Rodriguez (14), and Grasso Egan (13). Their 82% contested-motion grant rate reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances build knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That familiarity gap narrows as an opposing party learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a discovery-and-contempt attrition practice, the patterns above each correspond to specific procedural rules and tools. The following describes what those rules are and what each pattern is — not a recommendation about what to do in any case.
- The discovery dispute. Discovery motions are this firm's single biggest marker — 1.78 per case. Sanctions for discovery require a non-compliance basis; responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes that basis. Where requests are over-broad, the targeted objection and the protective-order motion are the procedural tools a party may use to limit them. A complete, documented response record is what supports a "compliant party" characterization and bears on the fee analysis.
- The contempt motion. With nearly one contempt motion per case (0.93; 112 total, 47 of them post-judgment), contempt is a recurring filing, and it can be brought after judgment. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with every 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 fails on those documents.
- Fee-shifting. With 1.43 fee touches per case, fee-shifting is frequently put in play. 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 a court may consider in a fee determination, and that record cuts in whichever direction the conduct points.
- The clock. The continuance is this firm's top single motion type (137 filings; 1.21 per case). Continuances 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. Each contested continuance is something the moving party has to justify to the court.
- The early / ex-parte move. Emergency ex-parte custody applications (26 filed; 0.26 per case) and pendente-lite orders (72) are tools to lock in interim terms quickly. An ex-parte order is provisional by design; the rules provide for a prompt follow-up hearing at which the full record is heard. Evidence and proposed orders prepared early are what a party brings to that hearing.
- The GAL question. A GAL appears in 10% of their cases, and the firm pairs repeatedly with the same guardian (3 appearances). A proposed GAL's name and prior pairings are matters of public record. The appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline are set; those terms are defined in the order itself.
- Volume vs. the merits. This firm files heavily, and more against unrepresented opponents (22.73 vs 17.59 filings/case). Filing volume and the substantive questions of a case (custody, support, division) are separate things; a short, documented, merits-focused record is what keeps the substantive questions in front of the court regardless of how many filings surround them. This firm's volume is its defining feature — and a feature that operates independently of the merits.
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. 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.