Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Law Offices of Eric R. Posmantier LLC

Firm Juris No. 434293 · Lower Fairfield County, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (32 contested cases) — treat the rates below 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 is granted most of what it files in front of judges it appears before frequently. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns most relevant to an opponent involve focus, the record, and procedure.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 2.9 discovery motions per case (93 total — 39 motions to compel, plus deposition commissions and related demands). Discovery is where much of the activity concentrates. The practical effect is that the process becomes expensive and time-consuming before the merits are reached.
• 1.7 contempt motions per case (55 total — 21 post-judgment, 19 pendente lite, plus general and pre-judgment variants). Contempt is a frequently-filed motion for this firm rather than a last resort. Allegations of order violations tend to appear early and recur.
• 1.0 counsel-fee request per case (32 markers; 10 fee motions pendente lite) — they routinely ask the court to have the other side pay their fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable cost dynamic: continued litigation can carry a fee-shifting risk.

Add 1.75 continuances per case (56) and the overall pattern is visible: an extended timeline, a high volume of discovery and contempt motions, and ongoing fee requests over the life of the case.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~38.6 filings on the docket per case — an exceptionally heavy paper load for a small shop. And the volume is not evenly distributed:

• They file more against represented opponents. Against a represented opponent: 40.75 filings/case (20 cases). Against a pro-se opponent: 35.0 filings/case (12 cases). Even the lighter end means a self-represented spouse faces an average of roughly 35 filings to answer.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Knight v. Brog (FST-FA13-4026444-S) — 326 filings, the firm's all-time high; Collins v. Collins (FST-FA15-5014669-S) — 58 filings (opponent pro se); Briggs v. Briggs (DBD-FA21-6039487-S) — 49 filings; Haas v. Haas (FST-FA04-0199324-S) — 48 filings (opponent pro se).
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Collins v. Collins — 58 filings; Haas v. Haas — 48; Krell v. Volkov (DBD-FA18-6029042-S) — 47; Hook v. Hook (DBD-FA22-6041748-S) — 43; Page v. Green (FBT-FA24-6131492-S) — 41. Dozens of filings on dockets where the opposing party had no attorney.

This is the core of the high-volume style: the docket itself carries much of the activity. For a self-represented party, the figures above indicate the paper load is typically heavy regardless of who the opponent is.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL is recorded in 0% of these cases (0 of 32 dockets), even though the firm files GAL-appointment markers (23 across the sample, 0.72 per case). On this record, custody fights here are litigated directly rather than routed through an appointed guardian ad litem.
• Because no recurring GAL pairing surfaces in the sample, a GAL proposal would be a case-specific event rather than a known pattern for this firm.

Context: When a GAL is proposed in a case, the appointment order is the document that can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended variable. A party reviewing a proposed name can look up that individual's prior appointments in the public docket.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Thomas Colin (40 rulings) and Hon. Heidi Winslow (33) far more than any other judge, then Truglia, Heller, and Kowalski. Their 74% contested-motion win rate reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances mean exposure to each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A judge's standing orders and motion practice are part of the public record for the assigned courthouse.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This is an 11.5-motions-per-case, high-volume firm. The items below describe the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern noted above. They are descriptions of how the process works, not instructions for any particular case.

1. The discovery pattern. Much of this firm's activity runs through motions to compel (2.9 discovery motions/case, 39 motions to compel). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use when discovery demands are claimed to be overbroad. A documented record of timely, complete responses is what a fee or sanctions argument turns on.

1. The contempt pattern. With 1.7 contempt motions per case (55 total), contempt is a common motion in this firm's practice. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the record against which a contempt allegation is measured. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents is one a court can deny.

1. The fee-request pattern. This firm averages 1.0 counsel-fee request per case (10 fee motions PL). Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that a court may weigh when deciding a fee question.

1. The timeline pattern. This firm's single most-filed motion is the continuance — 53 of them, 1.75 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. These are the mechanisms by which a case's pace is set.

1. The volume pattern. With ~38.6 filings per case (and 40.75 against represented opponents), the docket itself carries a heavy load. The practical distinction among filings is whether each one carries a deadline or a legal consequence; calendaring and organizing the filing record is how a party tracks that. Matching filing-for-filing is not what the procedural rules require.

1. The process-versus-merits distinction. This firm's defining feature is high volume of procedural activity. The substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are decided on the merits; the procedural tools above are how those questions reach the court. A concise, well-documented record is one approach observed in the docket data, distinct from this firm's high-volume style.

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.