Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Robert Brian McLaughlin

Firm Juris No. 307079 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (42 contested cases) — treat rates as indicative, not definitive.

What this is. A data-driven scouting report on how this firm litigates contested family 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 defense-side Hartford practice whose work clusters around modifications and contempt, not a discovery-war attrition shop. The activity concentrates in the post-judgment lifecycle. The firm's defining characteristics in this sample are its defensive posture, its modification focus, and a clean procedural record.

How they litigate (the style)

This is a defense-and-modification practice. Three numbers define the style:

• Almost pure defense — 41 of 42 cases on the defendant side. The firm's history shows it built to respond to the other party's case rather than to set the agenda by filing first. In this sample, the moving party is typically someone other than this firm; it reacts.
• Modification is the signature move — 0.55 modification markers per case (23 total), by far their most common marker. Add 0.24 contempt per case (10) and the pattern shows where the work lives: enforcing and changing existing orders, frequently post-judgment. The recurring issues are changed circumstances, support amounts, and order compliance — not a from-scratch custody trial.
• A genetic-testing cluster — 5 motions for genetic test plus a handful of state-caption (ST/CT) paternity-style matters in the docket — points to support/paternity enforcement work mixed in with private dissolution.

Layer in 0.26 continuances per case (11) and the picture is a steady, order-focused defense rather than a paper avalanche.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases the firm's side puts 5.69 filings on the docket per case — moderate on its face. But the volume is sharply uneven, and the asymmetry runs the opposite direction from many high-volume shops:

• They file far more against represented opponents than against pro-se ones. Against a represented opponent: 11.62 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 2.04 filings/case. When the other side has a lawyer, the docket gets heavy; when the other side is self-represented, the firm's footprint is small. The big numbers are driven by a few hard-fought, lawyer-vs-lawyer matters.
• The heaviest barrage on record: Delmastro, Kristin v. Delmastro, Francis (HHD-FA05-4018870-S) — 124 filings, the firm's all-time high and an extreme outlier well above every other case in the set. The opponent there was represented, consistent with the pattern above.

For a self-represented person, the data point is unusual: this firm's documented intensity has historically tracked the represented cases. That does not mean a pro-se opponent's case is necessarily light — it means the few heavily-litigated matters in the sample are where their effort concentrated.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• No guardian ad litem appears in any case in this sample — GAL present rate 0% (0 of 42), with only a single GAL-appointment marker recorded. This is not a firm whose documented pattern includes routinely bringing a third decision-maker into custody fights. There are no recurring GAL pairings to flag.

What this means: GAL involvement is not part of this firm's documented pattern. Where a GAL is proposed in any matter, the appointment order is the document that defines its scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost regardless of who requests it. That is general information about how GAL appointments are structured under Connecticut practice, not a recommendation about any case.

The bench

They appear most before Hon. Elliot Solomon (8) and Hon. Holly Abery-Wetstone (8), then Hon. Constance Epstein (7) — a small, repeating Hartford bench. Their roughly two-thirds motion success may reflect familiarity: repeated appearances before the same judges' calendars and motion practice. Familiarity with an assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is something any party — represented or self-represented — can develop by reading the public docket and the judge's published orders.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a defense-and-modification firm, the recurring pattern is that the firm responds rather than initiates and keeps a clean procedural record. The points below describe what each pattern is, and the procedural tools and rules that relate to it — as general information, not as a directive.

1. The firm rarely moves first. With 41 of 42 cases on the defendant side, this firm reacts rather than drives. As a descriptive matter, in cases where it appears the agenda is usually set by the moving party — whoever that is — and the firm responds to it.

1. Modification turns on the documents. Modification is their signature (0.55/case). A modification proceeding under Connecticut practice generally turns on proof of the financial and custodial facts — the affidavit and the underlying numbers — rather than on argument. That is true whether a party is seeking or resisting a modification.

1. Contempt turns on the record of compliance. Contempt shows up at 0.24/case (10 total). A contempt finding generally requires proof of a clear order and non-compliance with it; a contemporaneous record of compliance with an order — payments, exchanges, communications — is the factual record against which such a motion is measured. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail on the merits.

1. The volume asymmetry is the firm's defining feature. Their footprint is light against pro-se opponents (2.04 filings/case) and heavy against represented ones (11.62). This firm's volume — and how unevenly it is distributed — is the single most distinctive thing the data shows. The asymmetry is an observation about the sample, not a prediction about any particular case.

1. Timing tools and the second-look standard. They use continuances (11) and motions to reargue/reconsider (6). 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. Reargument under Connecticut practice is addressed to overlooked controlling law or fact, not to relitigating a decided point — that standard is what defines the scope of a motion to reargue.

1. The win rate rests on a small sample. Their ~66% contested-motion success rests on a small decided-motion sample (35 motions) — indicative, not definitive. Where the docket records no outcome, the motion is excluded from the rate. A merits-focused record in front of a familiar bench is the kind of input that moves such a number over time.

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, 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.