Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Suisman Shapiro Wool Brennan Gray & Gree

Firm Juris No. 062114 · New London County, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

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 high-volume, motion-active firm that prevails on most of what it files in front of judges it appears before constantly, on its home turf in New London. Volume is its defining feature; the patterns most visible in the record are focus, documentation, and procedure.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is discovery activity, calendar management, and contempt filings. Three numbers define them:

• 1.34 discovery motions per case (256 total) — discovery is a primary venue for their filings, anchored by motions to compel (29). The pattern is one in which the process becomes resource-intensive well before the merits are reached.
• 0.80 continuances per case (153 total; "Motion for Continuance" is their single most-filed motion at 148) — calendar management is prominent. The timeline frequently extends through their filings.
• 0.50 contempt motions per case (95 total — including 35 post-judgment and 29 pendente lite) — contempt is a recurring filing rather than a last resort. The record often reflects allegations of order violations and the accumulation of an adverse "bad actor" record against the opposing party.

Add 0.42 counsel-fee requests per case (81 total) and the full picture emerges: active discovery, ongoing calendar management, a contempt narrative, and a continuously live fee question.

The filing volume — and the cases with the most

Across all cases, the firm's side records ~14.7 filings on the docket per case (2,814 total). The volume does not let up against unrepresented opponents:

• Filing volume is comparable against unrepresented opponents. Against a pro-se opponent: 14.81 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 14.67/case. Self-representation does not correlate with a lighter paper load in this record — if anything, the firm's pace is marginally higher.
• The heaviest filing volumes on record: Cody v. Gudz (KNO-FA20-6106273-S) — 71 filings (opponent pro se); Curran v. Curran (KNO-FA23-6109144-S) — 59; Vakili v. Vakili (KNO-FA22-6107882-S) — 54 (opponent pro se); Duzant v. Duzant (KNO-FA21-6107233-S) — 51.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Cody v. Gudz (KNO-FA20-6106273-S) — 71 filings; Vakili v. Vakili (KNO-FA22-6107882-S) — 54; Speer v. Speer (KNO-FA22-6107966-S) — 47; Lammer v. Gada (KNO-FA19-6109452-S) — 43; Serkosky v. Serkosky (KNO-FA22-6108378-S) — 39. Dozens of filings appear in cases involving people with no attorney.

This is the core of the volume pattern: the docket itself carries the activity. In this record, self-represented opponents see filing volumes comparable to represented opponents.

Their motion patterns (top filings)

GAL pattern

• GAL appears in 8.4% of their cases (16 of 191), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 22 times. In this record, GAL appointment is associated with the firm's contested custody cases rather than appearing uniformly.
• Repeat GAL pairings. The firm appears repeatedly with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (the two most frequent appearing 5× and 4× in its cases). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that recurrence is itself a documented pattern.

Procedural context: Where a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record that can be researched. Connecticut practice allows a party to address a GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline in the appointment order; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and reporting open-ended.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Kenneth Shluger (45) more than any other judge, then Connors (32), Thomas (31), Necci (22), Newson (12), and Spallone (12). Their 88% contested-motion win rate likely reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances build knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A party who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice reduces that familiarity gap.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This is a motion-active firm whose volume is its defining feature. The information below maps each documented pattern to the neutral procedural tools and rules that bear on it.

1. The discovery pattern. At 1.34 discovery motions per case (256 total) — anchored by motions to compel — non-compliance is a common predicate for those filings. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for a motion to compel or for sanctions. A complete, documented response record is what supports a party's showing that it is the compliant party, which also bears on the fee analysis.

1. The contempt pattern. With 95 contempt motions across their caseload (35 post-judgment, 29 pendente lite), contempt is a recurring filing in this firm's record. A contempt motion turns on proof of compliance or non-compliance with a specific order; contemporaneous documentation of compliance (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidentiary record that addresses such a motion. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents fails on its own terms.

1. The fee-request pattern. They make 81 counsel-fee requests across their cases (0.42 per case). 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 the statute makes relevant; both sides' conduct is part of that record.

1. The continuance pattern. Continuances are their single most-filed motion (148; 0.80 per case). A continuance 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. Each continuance is a request the court rules on, and opposition is noted on the record.

1. The GAL pattern. GAL appears in 8.4% of their cases and the firm moves for appointment 22 times, repeatedly appearing with the same handful of guardians. A proposed GAL's prior pairings are researchable in the public record, and Connecticut practice allows the appointment order to define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline.

1. The merits. This firm's record reflects an 88% contested-motion win rate built on volume and home-court familiarity in New London. The substantive questions of a family case — custody, support, division — are resolved on the merits regardless of motion volume. A focused, well-documented record keeps those substantive questions central; filing volume does not by itself determine merits outcomes.

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.