Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Susan King Shaw

Firm Juris No. 303485 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (37 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 New Haven-centered solo who files first, relies on continuances and discovery activity, and prevails on most of the motions that reach a recorded outcome before judges she appears before regularly. The defining feature of this practice is its calendar control and procedural cadence rather than its raw filing volume.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature pattern is clock control + discovery activity + custody escalation. Three numbers define the practice:

• 1.3 continuances per case (49 total; 47 of the firm's filed motions are motions for continuance) — by a wide margin the most common single filing. Calendar management is the firm's default mode: the timeline tends to stretch and the matter tends to sit.
• 0.9 discovery motions per case (33 total) — discovery is an active area for this firm. Motions to compel and discovery disputes are a frequent feature, and the process itself can become costly and time-consuming before the merits are reached.
• 0.3 emergency ex parte custody applications per case (11 total; 9 logged as applications for emergency ex parte order of custody) — for a solo docket this is a notable rate of seeking emergency custody relief. In custody matters, an early emergency application is a recurring move in this firm's history.

Add 0.76 counsel-fee requests per case (28) and 0.60 contempt motions per case (22) and the picture fills in: calendar control, discovery activity, custody escalation, with fee and contempt motions also appearing in the mix.

The filing pattern — and where it concentrates

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~16 filings on the docket per case (594 filings over 37 cases). The volume is not evenly distributed:

• The firm files more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 17.76 filings/case (21 such cases). Against a represented opponent: 13.81/case (16 cases). The self-represented party faces roughly 29% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest filing counts on record: Victor v. Victor (NNH-FA20-6109426-S) — 64 filings, opponent pro se; Clancy v. Clancy (NNH-FA18-6081871-S) — 45 filings, opponent pro se; Simon-Glidden v. Glidden (NNH-FA23-6151241-S) — 29 filings.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Victor v. Victor (64) and Clancy v. Clancy (45) again top the list, followed by Hogan v. Cordova (NNH-FA21-6115868-S) — 26 filings, Hearn v. Hearn (NNH-FA20-6102411-S) — 24 filings, and Britton v. Britton (NNH-FA17-6072744-S) — 23 filings — all opponents pro se.

This is the core of the volume asymmetry: the docket carries the most paper in cases where the opponent is unrepresented. The section below describes the procedural rules and tools that correspond to each of these patterns.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in only ~5.4% of their cases (2 of 37) — well below the rate seen at high-volume custody shops. But the firm moves for GAL appointment more often than that rate suggests (6 motions for appointment of a GAL; 29 GAL-appointment markers across the docket), so the request can surface even where one is not ultimately seated.
• Because the recorded GAL data is too thin to identify a reliable recurring pairing, GAL use here reads as occasional but available — a tool the firm reaches for in contested custody cases, not a fixture.

What the rule provides: when a GAL is proposed, an appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline up front; an unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk. A proposed GAL's record is a matter of public information that can be researched independently.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Jane Grossman (18 appearances) more than any other judge, then Goodrow (10), Griffin (8), and Dembo (6). The ~87% contested-motion win rate is partly familiarity — a solo who returns to the same New Haven judges tends to learn their preferences, calendar habits, and motion-practice expectations. A party's awareness of the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is part of what closes that familiarity gap.

What to expect — and your procedural options

The litigation profile is a clock-controlling, discovery-active solo. This firm's volume is its defining feature, and that volume concentrates against unrepresented opponents. The following describes, for each pattern above, what the corresponding procedural rule or tool is — not a recommendation about what to do in any case.

1. The clock. Continuances are this firm's single most-used filing (47; 1.3 per case). A continuance is a request to postpone a matter; it 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. Together these are the mechanisms by which the timing of a matter is contested.

1. Discovery. With 0.9 discovery motions per case, motions to compel are a common feature here. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions or a motion to compel; a protective order or a targeted objection is the rule-based response available when a discovery demand is overbroad. A clear record of complete, timely responses is what a court looks to in resolving such disputes.

1. Emergency custody. Nine emergency ex parte custody applications across this docket is a meaningful rate for a solo. An ex parte application is decided initially without the other party present, followed by a hearing. Contemporaneous records of caregiving, exchanges, and communications are the kind of documentation a court considers at that first hearing when an ex parte narrative is tested.

1. Contempt. With ~0.6 contempt motions per case (22 total, PL and post-judgment), contempt is a recurring motion in this firm's history. A contempt motion turns on proof of non-compliance with a court order; contemporaneous proof of compliance (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a court weighs against such a motion. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail.

1. Counsel fees. With 0.76 counsel-fee requests per case, fee motions are common here. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own continuance and motion volume is part of the litigation-conduct record a court may consider on a fee question.

1. The merits. Given the pro-se filing gap (17.76 vs 13.81 filings/case), this firm's volume concentrates against unrepresented opponents. A short, focused, merits-oriented record is the natural counterpoint to high filing volume; the substantive questions in a family matter (custody, support, division) are what ultimately decide it, regardless of the number of intermediate filings.

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.