Opposing-Counsel Playbook: LOBO & ASSOCIATES LLC

Firm Juris No. 425982 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (37 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 small but motion-aggressive firm that prevails on most of what it files in front of judges it sees again and again. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns that follow describe where that volume concentrates and which procedural rules and tools correspond to each one.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is clock control + discovery pressure + contempt. Three numbers define them:

• 3.81 continuances per case (141 total) — by far their most-used filing. The timeline tends to stretch, keeping the case open and the cost meter running.
• 1.70 discovery motions per case (63 total) — discovery is contested heavily, which makes the process expensive and time-consuming before the merits are reached.
• 1.35 contempt motions per case (50 total — including 26 post-judgment) — contempt appears as a primary tool, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations show up early and often, especially after judgment.

Add 0.65 counsel-fee requests per case (24 total) and the full picture emerges: a long timeline, heavy discovery, a contempt-driven record, and fee requests held in reserve.

The filing barrage — and where it concentrates

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~26 filings on the docket per case. The volume is not evenly distributed:

• Filing volume is higher against unrepresented opponents, not lower. Against a pro-se opponent: 27.91 filings/case (22 such cases). Against a represented opponent: 23.27/case (15 cases). The party least equipped to respond corresponds to the heaviest paper load.
• The heaviest barrages on record (≥20 filings):
• Jones v. Jones (HHB-FA17-6036410-S) — 94 filings (opponent pro se) — the firm's all-time high.
• Lugo v. Lugo (HHD-FA08-4040818-S) — 60 filings (opponent pro se).
• Rosario v. Rosario (HHB-FA21-6068695-S) — 52 filings.
• Edwards v. Hunt (HHD-FA19-5058390-S) — 49 filings (opponent pro se).
• Lee v. Lee (HHD-FA17-5049650-S) — 42 filings (opponent pro se).
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: the four heaviest dockets above where the opponent appeared pro se (94, 60, 49, 42 filings) plus Faienza v. Faienza (HHB-FA08-4019118-S) — 36 filings, opponent pro se. Dozens of filings on dockets where the opponent had no attorney.

This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket itself carries the pressure. Self-represented parties appear most often on the receiving end of this volume, which is the asymmetry the procedural information below describes.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• GAL appears in 16.2% of their cases (6 of 37), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 7 times (with 29 GAL-appointment markers across the docket history). The pattern shows GALs used as a custody lever, not a neutral afterthought.
• No reportable pattern of the firm repeatedly pairing with the same small set of guardians ad litem emerges from this sample — so this firm's GAL exposure here is best read by rate, not by any named rotation.

What this means: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record that can be researched. A GAL-appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment corresponds to an open-ended cost and an open-ended record.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Leo Diana (28 rulings) more than any other judge, then Armata (19), Connors (17), Olear (15), and Dolan (14). Their 82% contested-motion grant rate is partly familiarity — repeat appearances mean knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That familiarity gap narrows as a party learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice, both of which are public.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a 9-motions-per-case attrition firm, the recurring patterns above each correspond to specific Connecticut rules and procedural tools. The following describes what those tools are and what each pattern is — as information, not as a recommendation for any particular case.

1. The clock. Continuances are this firm's signature filing — 3.81 per case (134 motions). 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. The pattern is one of timeline extension; the corresponding tools are objection and advancement.

1. Discovery. At 1.70 discovery motions per case, this firm contests the discovery process heavily. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, timely response is itself part of the record. A protective-order motion is the rule-based tool that addresses over-broad or burdensome discovery demands.

1. Contempt — especially post-judgment. With 1.35 contempt motions per case and 26 of them filed after judgment, contempt allegations recur even after a case closes. 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 tends to lose force before a familiar judge.

1. Counsel fees. This firm files fee motions (9, plus 24 counsel-fee markers). In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct under C.G.S. §46b-62. A party's own continuances and motion volume are part of the litigation-conduct record that §46b-62 considers; the docket itself documents which side generated which costs.

1. The paper barrage. This firm's side files ~28 filings/case against pro-se opponents vs ~23 against represented ones — the heaviest dockets (94, 60, 49, 42 filings) concentrate on unrepresented parties. A calendared deadline list, a clean filing index, and answering what the rules require an answer to are the organizational responses that correspond to high docket volume. Volume is the defining feature of this firm's practice.

1. The merits. This firm's pattern is one of process-heavy litigation before a familiar bench. A short, focused, merits-centered record is the structural counterweight to filing volume — the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are what the merits ultimately turn on, and the assigned judge's standing orders are public.

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.