Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Michael K. Conway
Firm Juris No. 306513 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (40 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
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 40 | A solo practice with a focused contested-family docket |
| Home turf | Waterbury (UWY): 31, then New Britain (HHB: 6), single appearances in Danbury, Hartford, New Haven | The Waterbury bench is his court |
| Side he takes | 22 plaintiff / 18 defendant | Roughly balanced — files first slightly more often than not |
| Motions per case | 3.33 | A motion practice in the normal contested range, not an outlier |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 82.9% (decided-motion sample = 35) | When he files and the docket records a result, it usually goes his way — but read the sample caveat above |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Anna Ficeto (20), then Rapillo (10), Murphy (8) | He appears before the Waterbury bench repeatedly |
Bottom line: a solo attorney with a steady, district-concentrated contested practice. The pressure does not come from raw motion volume — it comes from discovery, total filing load, and the asymmetry against unrepresented opponents. This firm's defining features are focus, a deep record, and procedural familiarity.
How they litigate (the style)
Three rates define the signature:
- 1.5 discovery-related motions per case (60 markers) — discovery is the single most common move on the board, well ahead of any motion type. The process tends to be the battlefield: production demands, motions to compel (11 on record), and the paperwork that comes with them.
- 0.95 GAL-appointment markers per case (38) — nearly one custody-decision-maker event per case, and Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem appears 9 times in the top filings. In contested custody, a push to bring a GAL into the matter is common.
- 0.78 continuances per case (31) and 0.7 counsel-fee markers per case (28) — the clock and the fee meter are both live levers. Continuance is in fact the single most-filed motion type (31), so the timeline tends to be managed, not rushed.
Read together: a discovery-forward, custody-lever, time-and-fee-aware style — applied steadily across a Waterbury-heavy docket.
The filing volume — and where it concentrates
Across all cases this firm's side puts ~16.3 filings on the docket per case. The load is not evenly distributed:
- He files more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 20.05 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 12.86/case. The party least equipped to respond sees roughly 56% more paper — the self-represented spouse carries the heaviest load.
- The heaviest filing volumes on record (each ≥20 filings): Divirgilio-Kornhaas v. Kornhaas (UWY-FA11-4024395-S) — 73 filings (the firm's all-time high, opponent pro se); Sadorra v. Sadorra (NNH-FA23-6130578-S) — 39 (pro se); Kellogg v. Kellogg (UWY-FA16-5017525-S) — 34 (pro se); Lopes v. Ferrari (UWY-FA16-4036795-S) — 29 (pro se); Silas v. Silas (UWY-FA19-6048513-S) — 22.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Crevier v. Crevier (UWY-FA17-5018663-S) — 21 filings, opponent pro se, joins the four pro-se cases above.
The data indicates that self-represented parties tend to face the heavier-load profile — the procedural options below are described with that asymmetry in mind.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 31 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Order | 13 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion to Compel | 11 | Discovery war — the opening salvo |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 9 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody fights |
| Objection to Motion | 8 | Blunts opposing filings |
| Motion for Support | 5 | Locks in financial posture |
| Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody | 5 | Fast, high-stakes custody move |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 5 | Shifts the burden after judgment |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in only 7.5% of his cases (3 of 40) on the docket — modest by appearance — yet he affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 9 times and shows 38 GAL-appointment markers. The push to appoint is more frequent than the recorded GAL presence, so a GAL motion is a real probability in a custody case.
- The data does not show a recurring set of the same guardians ad litem pairing with this firm; GAL use here is best read by rate, not by repeat partner.
What this means. When a GAL is proposed, the scope, budget, and reporting deadline are typically set in the appointment order itself. An appointment order that leaves scope undefined leaves the associated cost and risk undefined as well; those terms are commonly addressed at the order stage.
The bench
He appears before Hon. Anna Ficeto (20) far more than any other judge, then Rapillo (10), Murphy (8), and Armata (6). The 82.9% grant rate is partly familiarity — repeated appearances before the same Waterbury judges build knowledge of their preferences, calendar habits, and standing practices. Familiarity with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is what narrows that gap. (Decided-motion sample is small — see caveat.)
What to expect — and your procedural options
Six observations, each tied to a specific pattern above, describing the relevant rules and tools rather than recommending a course of action:
- The discovery war. Discovery is his most common move (1.5/case; 11 motions to compel). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, timely response set is the record that addresses a non-compliance narrative and the fee argument that can follow it.
- The GAL push. Although a GAL is recorded in only 7.5% of cases, he moves to appoint one 9 times. When a GAL is proposed, the appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline are defined; an order that omits those terms leaves the appointment open-ended.
- Fee leverage. With 0.7 counsel-fee markers per case, a fee request is common. Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's motion and continuance activity is part of the litigation-conduct record the court considers; the cost driver of a case is part of that same analysis.
- The clock. Continuance is his single most-filed motion (31; 0.78/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.
- Ex parte custody motions. Applications for emergency ex parte orders of custody appear 5 times. In a custody dispute, an ex parte order can issue and be responded to quickly; contemporaneous proof of caregiving and conduct is the kind of record relevant to such a response.
- The pro-se asymmetry. Unrepresented opponents see ~56% more filings (20.05 vs 12.86/case). The data indicates self-represented spouses are the heavier-load profile. This firm's volume is its defining feature; a focused record and the framing of the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are what the merits of a case ultimately turn on, independent of filing count.
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, and the decided-motion sample here is small. 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.