Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Mager & Mager

Firm Juris No. 101805 · Connecticut · 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

Bottom line: this is a motion-aggressive firm whose contested motions are granted most of the time before judges it appears before frequently. Its volume is its defining feature.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature pattern is discovery activity, fee requests, and contempt filings. Three rates characterize the practice:

• 2.03 discovery motions per case (128 total) — discovery is where much of the firm's activity is concentrated. The effect is that the process itself becomes time-consuming and costly well before a case reaches the merits.
• 1.16 counsel-fee requests per case (73 mentions) — fee-shifting is routinely placed in play. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable feature: continued litigation can carry a cost-shifting risk.
• 1.14 contempt motions per case (72 total — 28 post-judgment, 15 pendente lite, 14 general) — contempt is filed as a regular feature of the practice rather than only as a last resort. Allegations of order violations tend to appear early and recur.

Add 1.25 continuances per case (79) and the overall profile emerges: an extended timeline, a high volume of discovery and contempt motions, and ongoing fee activity over the life of the case.

The filing volume — and where it concentrates

Across all cases, the firm's side records ~22.2 filings on the docket per case. That volume is not evenly distributed:

• Filing volume is higher against unrepresented opponents, not lower. Against a pro-se opponent: 23.2 filings/case (20 such cases). Against a represented opponent: 21.8/case (43 cases). The heavier paper load falls on the party least equipped to respond.
• The heaviest filing records: Dechellis v. Dechellis (FST-FA06-4010042-S) — 339 filings (the firm's all-time high); Gallo v. Gallo (FBT-FA03-0406588-S) — 100 filings (opponent pro se); Thomas v. Cleary (NNH-FA19-5050611-S) — 67 filings (opponent pro se).
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Gallo v. Gallo (FBT-FA03-0406588-S) — 100 filings; Thomas v. Cleary (NNH-FA19-5050611-S) — 67 filings; Dillon v. Dillon (FBT-FA16-6059563-S) — 33 filings; Birckhead v. Birckhead (NNH-FA20-6102069-S) — 29 filings; Kester v. Frenette (AAN-FA24-6055920-S) — 28 filings. Dozens of filings appear in cases where the opposing party had no attorney.

This is the core of the high-volume model: the docket itself carries much of the activity. The pattern data indicates that self-represented opponents see filing volume at least as high as represented ones — the procedural options described below are the same rules and tools that apply across all of these cases.

Their motion practice (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 15.9% of their cases (10 of 63), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 9 times (with 43 GAL-related markers across the docket). GALs feature here as a recurring element of custody disputes.
• The data does not show a reliable recurring set of the same guardians ad litem paired with this firm, so GAL exposure here is better understood by rate and frequency of use than by any particular name.

What the process involves: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name can be researched independently through public sources. An appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended variable in a case.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Barbara Quinn (22 rulings) more than any other judge, then Grossman (20), Tindill (16), Schofield (9), Malone (8), Moses (7), Grasso Egan (7), and Truglia (7). The ~74% grant rate on decided motions reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances before the same judges and their calendar habits and preferences. A self-represented opponent's familiarity with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is one factor that narrows that gap.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This firm's volume is its defining feature: roughly 7 motions per case, concentrated in discovery, contempt, and continuances. The following describes, for each pattern above, the rules and procedural tools that are generally available — as information, not as a recommendation about any specific case.

1. The discovery pattern. At 2.03 discovery motions per case, discovery is where much of the firm's activity concentrates. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, well-supported objection is the procedural response available when a discovery demand is overbroad. A complete and timely response record is also relevant to the cost-and-conduct factors that inform fee questions.

1. The contempt pattern. With 1.14 contempt motions per case, contempt filings are a regular feature of this practice. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the kind of record on which a contempt motion is decided; a contempt motion that is not supported by the documents generally does not succeed.

1. The fee-request pattern. With 1.16 fee requests per case, fee-shifting is routinely placed in play. Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62) — litigation conduct, including motion volume and continuances, is among the factors a court may consider when it decides who bears costs.

1. The continuance pattern. Continuances are the firm's single most-filed motion (77; 1.25 per case). 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; together these are the standard mechanisms that govern the case timeline.

1. The emergency ex parte custody pattern. The firm has filed emergency ex parte custody applications 8 times. These move on short notice; an ex parte order that goes unrebutted at the short-notice hearing can set the custody baseline for the rest of the case. The hearing is the procedural point at which such an order is addressed on the record.

1. The volume pattern overall. The model is built on process volume — ~22 filings per case, with at least as many against unrepresented opponents. A short, merits-focused record is the structural alternative to matching that volume: the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are what the court ultimately decides, and filing volume is not itself a measure 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.