Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Rome Clifford Katz & Koerner LLP
Firm Juris No. 304302 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
This is general information about public litigation patterns — not legal advice, and not a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.
Limited sample (28 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.
Snapshot
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 28 | A modest, focused contested-divorce caseload |
| Home turf | Hartford (HHD): 14, then New Britain (HHB): 11, with stray Stamford / Middletown / Waterbury | The Hartford–New Britain corridor is their court |
| Side they take | 13 plaintiff / 15 defendant | Nearly even — they take cases from either chair |
| Motions per case | 4.86 | A motion-active practice, but not an extreme grinder |
| Contested-motion grant rate | ~74% (decided-motion sample is small — 27 with a recorded outcome; treat as indicative only) | When a fight reaches a ruling, they tend to come out ahead |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Barry Armata (10), then Diana (9), Dolan (7), Connors (7) | They know the Hartford/New Britain bench |
Bottom line: a focused firm that files a steady stream of motions and wins most of what gets decided in front of judges it appears before regularly. With a small caseload, the distinguishing features of this firm's practice are focus, the record, and procedure rather than sheer volume.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + fee leverage + contempt. Three numbers define them:
- 2.0 discovery motions per case (56 total) — discovery is the firm's main area of activity. The pattern tends to make the process expensive and time-consuming before a case reaches the merits.
- 1.14 counsel-fee requests per case (32 mentions; 3 fee motions pendente lite) — they routinely raise fees, asking the court to make the other side pay. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, that is a notable cost exposure.
- 1.07 contempt motions per case (30 total — 15 post-judgment, 5 pendente lite, plus general) — contempt is a regular tool in this firm's practice, not a last resort. An opponent can expect to see allegations of order violations.
Add 0.93 continuances per case (26) and the picture is one of timeline control, sustained discovery and contempt activity, and ongoing fee requests across the life of a case.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~18.75 filings on the docket per case. The volume is not evenly distributed:
- Represented opponents draw more paper — but pro-se opponents still get a heavy load. Against a represented opponent: 20.25 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 15.0/case. Either way, a self-represented spouse facing ~15 filings with no attorney sits in a steep asymmetry.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Yungaitis v. Arauz Pizzurno (HHD-FA24-6191438-S) — 54 filings; Mitchell v. Mitchell (HHD-FA17-6084616-S) — 52; Habibi v. Sarwar (HHD-FA19-6105434-S) — 38; Benson v. Benson (HHD-FA15-6059150-S) — 31.
- Against a self-represented opponent specifically: Ferguson v. Ferguson (HHB-FA24-6088573-S) — 30 filings, opponent pro se; Zastem Macchio v. Macchio (HHD-FA20-6134799-S) — 26 filings, opponent pro se.
High filing volume is the defining feature of this firm's docket footprint. For a self-represented party, the practical reality is that the paper load can exceed what one person can answer by hand — the procedural options below describe the tools that exist for managing that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 24 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 15 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Objection to Motion | 13 | Blunts an opponent's motions before they're heard |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment (PL) | 12 | Sets the agenda early, pendente lite |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 9 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody fights |
| Motion for Order | 8 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 5 | Early-stage contempt pressure |
| Motion for Counsel Fees PL | 3 | Fee leverage |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in ~10.7% of their cases (3 of 28), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 9 times (0.64 per case). When they want a third decision-maker in a custody fight, they ask for one. The data does not show a recurring set of the same guardians ad litem in this firm's cases — GAL use here is best read by rate, not by repeat pairings.
What this means in practice: a proposed GAL's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record that a party can research. An appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and timeline open-ended.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Barry Armata (10) most often, then Diana (9), Dolan (7), Connors (7), with Ficeto and Nguyen-O'Dowd also recurring. Part of any grant-rate edge is familiarity — a firm that appears repeatedly before the same judges tends to know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That familiarity is something a self-represented opponent can also build by reading the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a steady-motion firm, the following describes the procedural tools that exist and what each pattern above involves. These are descriptions of the rules and the observed pattern, not directions for any particular case.
- The discovery pattern. At 2.0 discovery motions per case, discovery is this firm's main area of activity. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, timely response record is what establishes which party is compliant, which is also relevant to fee arguments under Connecticut practice.
- The contempt pattern. With 1.07 contempt motions per case (15 of them post-judgment), contempt motions are common in this firm's cases, often after an order enters. A contempt motion turns on proof of compliance with the order at issue — contemporaneous records of payments, exchanges, and communications are the evidence a court weighs. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail on the record.
- The fee-leverage pattern. Fee requests are frequent here (32 mentions; 1.14 per case). Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are themselves part of the litigation-conduct record that a court may consider in a fee analysis.
- The timeline pattern. This firm averages 0.93 continuances per case (24 continuance motions — their single most-filed motion type). 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, which requires the moving party to justify the delay.
- The volume pattern. With ~18.75 filings per case (and 15.0 even against a pro-se opponent), this firm's volume is its defining feature. Calendaring each deadline when a filing is docketed and responding to the substance of filings are the standard mechanics for keeping pace. The firm's 13 objections to motions reflect a pattern of procedural challenges to an opponent's filings, which is one reason filings that are timely and rule-compliant carry weight.
- The GAL pattern. This firm moves for GAL appointment 9 times. Where a GAL is proposed, the name's prior pairings are public record, and a written scope, budget, and deadline can be set in the appointment order.
- The merits. This firm's model centers on the process. A short, merits-focused record is the structural counterweight to high filing volume — fewer, well-supported motions and an emphasis on the substantive questions (custody, support, division). This firm's volume is its defining feature, and a merits-focused posture is what makes that volume less determinative.
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; the decided-motion sample here is small (27 motions with a recorded outcome), so the rate is indicative only. 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.