Opposing-Counsel Playbook: The Bartinik Law Firm LLC
Firm Juris No. 001220 · New London Judicial District (KNO) · 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
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 93 | A busy, established family-law shop |
| Home turf | New London (KNO): 93 | They litigate in one courthouse — a deeply familiar venue |
| Side they take | 59 plaintiff / 34 defendant | Files first far more often — a pattern of setting the early agenda |
| Motions per case | 2.44 | A measured motion pace, but the total filing volume tells a different story (below) |
| Contested-motion win rate | Not reportable — only 25 of their filed motions show a recorded outcome (too small to state a percentage) | A "win rate" cannot reliably be drawn from a thin decided-motion sample |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Kenneth Shluger (20), then Connors (12), Thomas (9) | They appear before a small, familiar bench |
Bottom line: a single-office firm that files first, files a lot per case, and works a familiar bench. This firm's volume is its defining feature — the contrasting profile in the public record is a focused, record-driven, procedurally-attentive one.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is pendente-lite pressure + discovery friction + fee leverage. Three numbers define them:
- 0.53 discovery motions per case (49 cases touched) — discovery is active in roughly half their cases. Motions to compel and discovery objections appear in the pattern as tools that raise the cost of the process before the merits are reached.
- 0.42 counsel-fee requests per case (39 cases) — they routinely put fees in play, including counsel-fee motions pendente lite. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable feature of the pattern: the prospect that continued litigation may carry a fee exposure.
- 0.44 continuances per case (41 total; "Motion for Continuance" is their #2 filing) — the record shows comfort with extending the clock when it suits the case posture.
Layer on 0.24 contempt and 0.25 modification markers per case, and the pattern is consistent: early pendente-lite orders, discovery and fees as ongoing pressure, and active management of the timeline.
The filing barrage — and who sees it most
Across all cases, Bartinik's side puts ~11.85 filings on the docket per case — a heavy paper load even though the motion count per case is moderate. The volume is not evenly distributed:
- Represented opponents see slightly more paper than pro-se ones. Against a represented opponent: 12.43 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 11.07/case. Either way, a self-represented spouse is looking at roughly a dozen filings to address per case.
- The heaviest filing volumes on record: Desmond v. Desmond (KNO-FA22-6108410-S) — 51 filings; Collier v. Collier (KNO-FA23-6108931-S) — 48; McKenney v. McKenney (KNO-FA21-6106899-S) — 35; Zito v. Zito (KNO-FA19-6104742-S) — 33.
- Against a self-represented opponent specifically: Shelburn v. Tanner (KNO-FA21-5109792-S) — 40 filings (opponent pro se); Pellegrino v. Pellegrino (KNO-FA20-5108378-S) — 25 (pro se); Nowakowski v. Nowakowski (KNO-FA19-5107238-S) — 23 (pro se); Guerrero v. Rojo Cella (KNO-FA19-6105744-S) — 22 (pro se). Dozens of filings in cases where the opponent had no attorney.
A self-represented party facing this firm is, on the public record, likely to encounter a sustained paper load — the section below describes the procedural tools that exist in that situation.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite | 54 | Sets the early agenda: support, custody, possession |
| Motion for Continuance | 41 | Controls the clock |
| Objection to Motion | 14 | Opposes the other party's motions on the record |
| Motion for Order | 13 | General-purpose agenda-setting |
| Motion for Contempt — Post-Judgment | 11 | Places the other party in a defensive posture and builds a record |
| Motion for Order of Notice | 9 | Service / procedural setup |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 7 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody matters |
| Motion to Compel | 6 | Discovery dispute |
| Motion for Counsel Fees Pendente Lite | 3 | Fee leverage |
GAL strategy
- A GAL is present in only 8.6% of their cases (8 of 93) — they do not reach for a guardian ad litem reflexively. When a GAL appointment is moved for (7 appointment motions on record), the pattern suggests it functions as a deliberate custody-related step rather than a routine one.
- Repeat GAL pairing: the firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (one recurring guardian appearing 3 times). Whether a firm and a GAL have appeared together repeatedly is a matter of public record.
Context: When a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are discoverable from public dockets. A party may ask the court to define an appointment order's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment carries open-ended cost and is a recurring point of contention in family matters. The Practice Book and applicable statutes govern how appointment, scope, and fees are set.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Kenneth Shluger (20 rulings) more than any other judge, then Connors (12), Thomas (9), Devine (7). A single-district practice means deep familiarity with a handful of judges — their calendar habits, standing orders, and preferences. A judge's standing orders and motion practice are part of the public record, and familiarity with them is one factor that affects how evenly matched a self-represented party is in that courtroom.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a file-first, pendente-lite-driven firm, the public record points to a recurring shape: the early phase and the timeline matter, and the paper volume is high. Below, each item describes a pattern observed above and the neutral procedural information that corresponds to it — what the tools and rules are, not a recommendation about any case.
- The pendente-lite phase carries weight. Their #1 filing by far is the Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite (54). The early temporary-orders hearing often sets the tone for the rest of a case. At such a hearing, the materials before the court typically include a financial affidavit and, in custody matters, a parenting proposal; both are standard parts of the pendente-lite record under CT family practice.
- Discovery friction is part of the pattern. Discovery is active in over half their cases (0.53 motions/case). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; the docket reflects whether responses were made. Where a discovery demand is overbroad, an objection or a motion for a protective order are the procedural mechanisms the rules provide. The record of who complied and who did not is built by those filings.
- Fee requests appear frequently. They put fees in play in ~42% of cases (39). In Connecticut, counsel-fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct under C.G.S. §46b-62. Filing volume — here ~11.85 filings per case — and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record a court may consider when fees are argued.
- The continuance is a common motion in this practice. Motion for Continuance is their #2 filing (41). 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, and a court rules on a contested continuance based on the reasons stated. These are the mechanisms that govern the case timeline.
- Post-judgment contempt is a recurring filing. Post-judgment contempt (11) appears repeatedly in the record. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with court orders — payments, exchanges, communications — is the kind of documentation that bears on how a contempt motion is decided. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents is resolved on that record.
- Volume is the defining feature, not a high decided-motion win rate. Their edge in the data is the paper load, not the recorded motion outcomes (only 25 motions show an outcome — too few to call a rate). A short, focused, merits-oriented record is the contrasting profile. The substantive questions in a dissolution — custody, support, division of assets — are what the court ultimately decides; filing volume and the merits are distinct things on the docket.
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 where the decided-motion sample is too small, no rate is stated. 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.