Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Mulvey & Korotash

Firm Juris No. 039677 · Danbury, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (43 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 Danbury-focused firm that files a steady, well-targeted motion stream and wins most of what it gets decided in front of judges it appears before constantly. Their defining features are focus, the record, and procedure — and a deep familiarity with the assigned judge.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is clock control + selective discovery pressure + pendente lite positioning. Three numbers define them:

• 1.09 continuances per case (47 events; Motion for Continuance is their single most-filed motion at 44) — controlling the calendar is their most consistent habit. Cases tend to move on their timeline.
• 0.65 discovery motions per case (28 events; 5 motions to compel) — discovery is a real but selective lever, not a carpet-bombing campaign. When they push on disclosure, it is targeted.
• 0.47 contempt motions per case (20 events, split across post-judgment, pendente lite, and general) plus heavy use of pendente lite orders (Motion for Orders Before Judgment – Pendente Lite is their #2 filing at 14). They tend to set the terms of the case before judgment — temporary support, conduct, and possession orders that frame everything that follows.

Add 0.37 counsel-fee requests per case (16 events) and the pattern is clear: control the clock, seek favorable interim orders early, and apply fee and contempt pressure where it counts.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~13.4 filings on the docket per case — a moderate load, not an avalanche. The distribution is notably even:

• Represented vs. pro-se opponents get a similar paper load. Against a pro-se opponent: 12.08 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 13.87/case. Unlike some firms, they do not visibly escalate filing volume against the unrepresented — the load is roughly the same either way.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Sandberg v. Sandberg (DBD-FA24-5021060-S) — 33 filings (the firm's heaviest case); Taweh v. Taweh (DBD-FA16-6020697-S) — 32; Clarke v. Clarke (DBD-FA10-4011940-S) — 30; Winter v. Winter (DBD-FA23-6048216-S) — 28 filings, opponent self-represented; Coleman v. Coleman (DBD-FA11-4014282-S) — 25.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Winter v. Winter (DBD-FA23-6048216-S) — 28 filings, pro se; Bishop v. Bishop (DBD-FA19-5014751-S) — 20 filings, pro se. Heavy dockets do land on people without a lawyer, even if the firm-wide average doesn't single them out.

The takeaway: this is a steady-pressure firm, not an attrition mill — but a handful of cases run hot. A self-represented opponent is not the firm's preferred target by volume, though the record shows some contested cases run to a multi-year, 20-plus-filing docket.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in about 2.3% of their cases (1 of 43), and the firm moves for GAL appointment at a low rate (9 appointment markers across the dataset). On this sample, guardian ad litem involvement is the exception, not a routine custody lever.
• No recurring GAL pairing is reportable from this dataset — there is not a small, repeated set of the same guardians ad litem appearing across their cases at a level worth flagging. Any proposed GAL stands on its own merits.

Context: when a GAL is proposed, the appointment order is the document that can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline. An unscoped GAL appointment is, by nature, an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk; a scoped one is not.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Heidi Winslow (29 appearances) far more than any other judge, then Fox (14), Vizcarrondo (9), Eschuk, Truglia, and Ficeto. Their high grant rate is partly familiarity — in an almost entirely Danbury practice, they know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. That familiarity gap narrows for a self-represented opponent who learns the assigned judge's standing orders.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a focused, clock-controlling Danbury firm, this firm's volume and calendar control are its defining features. The information below describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each observed pattern.

1. The clock. Their most-filed motion by far is the continuance (44 filings; 1.09 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. Where delay is contested, each continuance is something the moving party has to justify.

1. The pendente lite orders. Their #2 filing is Motion for Orders Before Judgment – Pendente Lite (14), used to lock in favorable interim terms early. The pendente lite hearing is where temporary orders are set, and a party may bring its own proposed orders and financial affidavit — whoever frames the temporary orders often frames the whole case.

1. The contempt motions. With roughly 0.47 contempt motions per case (20 events, post-judgment and pendente lite), a contempt motion is a realistic possibility wherever interim or final orders exist. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with every order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion that collapses on the documents fails, and a record of compliance is what produces that result.

1. Discovery. They use discovery selectively (0.65 motions/case; 5 motions to compel). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions, and a documented response record establishes which party is the compliant one.

1. Fee requests. They ask courts to shift fees (16 counsel-fee events; 3 fee motions pendente lite). Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Under that standard, a party's own continuances and motion volume are relevant as cost drivers, and manufactured delay or expense is a factor the statute weighs.

1. The judge. Their 91.7% grant rate on decided motions is partly bench familiarity, concentrated before Hon. Heidi Winslow and a small Danbury rotation. The assigned judge's standing orders are public, and motion calendars are open to observe. Repetition is the source of the firm's edge; preparation specific to that judge is what closes the familiarity gap.

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.