Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Lynne A. Ustach

Firm Juris No. 304200 · New Britain (HHB) area, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (49 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 focused, motion-active practice that puts a lot of paper on each docket in front of judges it appears before regularly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the record and procedure are where that volume is documented. Note the small sample — these are tendencies, not certainties.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is discovery pressure + continuances + fee leverage. Three numbers define them:

• 2.22 discovery motions per case (109 markers) — discovery is a primary battlefield for this practice. The effect is to make the process demanding before the matter reaches the merits.
• 1.65 continuances per case (81 markers; "Motion for Continuance" is their single most-filed motion at 79) — the firm actively manages the clock. Timelines tend to stretch.
• 1.59 counsel-fee requests per case (78 markers; plus fee and PL-fee motions in the top filings) — the firm routinely raises fees on the record. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is where cost pressure concentrates.

Add a real contempt habit — 0.90 contempt markers per case (44 total), split across pendente lite, post-judgment, and general contempt motions — and the full picture is: discovery pressure, clock management, an active fee question, and contempt motions that put the other side in a defensive posture.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~22.65 filings on the docket per case. And the volume is not evenly distributed:

• They file more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 24.77 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 19.32/case. The party least equipped to respond receives the heavier paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 28% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Silva v. Jimenez III (HHB-FA19-5026830-S) — 76 filings (pro se opponent); Frazao v. Frazao (HHB-FA19-6051791-S) — 52 (pro se opponent); Gronski v. Gronski (HHB-FA16-6033212-S) — 49; Marks v. Harriott-Marks (HHB-FA24-5036518-S) — 47 (pro se opponent); Tine v. Tine (HHB-FA19-6050455-S) — 43.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Sanchez v. Sanchez (HHB-FA19-6051380-S) — 41 filings (pro se opponent); Wirtes v. Wirtes (HHB-FA01-0507864-S) — 39 (pro se opponent). Dozens of filings on dockets where the opposing party had no attorney.

This is the core of the model: the docket itself becomes a pressure point. A self-represented party tends to fall within this firm's heavier-volume target profile, and the procedural-options section below describes the tools that exist for that asymmetry.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 6.1% of their cases (3 of 49) — a comparatively modest rate, so GAL involvement is the exception rather than the rule for this practice.
• Repeat pairing. When a GAL is involved, the firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (3 appearances each). A recurring firm-and-GAL pairing is the kind of relationship that public docket records make visible.

What the rules provide: a proposed GAL's prior pairings with a firm are discoverable from public dockets; a party may raise the question of selection from outside any recurring rotation; and an appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline up front. An unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk — defining scope at the outset is what bounds both.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Barry Armata (54 rulings) far more than any other judge, then Dolan (21), Abery-Wetstone (21), Carbonneau (16), Connors (15), and Caron (13). Familiarity is an edge — a firm that appears repeatedly before the same judges knows their preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. Note: the decided-motion sample here is small, so we do not report a contested-motion win-rate percentage. The familiarity gap narrows as a self-represented party learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice — that information is public and reviewable.

What to expect — and your procedural options

With a motion-active, paper-heavy firm, the patterns above each correspond to specific procedural rules and tools. The following describes what those tools are and how the rules operate — not a recommendation about what to do in any particular case.

1. Discovery. At 2.22 discovery motions per case, discovery is this firm's main lever. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. Where a discovery demand is overbroad, an objection or a protective motion is the procedural response the rules provide; a contemporaneous record of responses is what documents the responding party as compliant.

1. The clock. Continuance is this firm's single most-filed motion (79) — about 1.65 per 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, which requires the moving party to justify the requested delay rather than receive it by default.

1. Contempt. With 0.90 contempt markers per case (44 total, including pendente lite and post-judgment), contempt motions are a recurring feature of this practice. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidentiary record against which a contempt motion is decided. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail on its own record.

1. Fees. At 1.59 fee-related markers per case, the fee question stays active on the docket. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record the statute makes relevant — the firm's filing activity is documented on the public docket.

1. Pendente lite. This firm files early interim motions — orders before judgment (19) and alimony PL (7) — which set the money and conduct posture before the merits. The first hearing is where these interim orders are decided; a complete financial affidavit and a clear interim proposal are the materials a party brings to that hearing for the order to reflect both sides' positions.

1. The merits. This model is associated with a busy, drawn-out process, and the firm files more against unrepresented opponents (24.77 vs 19.32 filings/case). A short, clean, merits-focused record is the structural counterweight to filing volume: fewer, well-documented filings and substantive questions (custody, support, division) brought to the front. Filing volume matters less the more a docket is organized around the merits.

Methodology & limits

Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). 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). This profile rests on a limited sample (49 contested cases); rates are indicative, not definitive, and the decided-motion sample is too small to report a contested-motion win-rate percentage. Patterns reflect aggregate history, not the conduct of any one attorney or the merits of any one case.