Opposing-Counsel Playbook: THE VON KOHORN LAW FIRM

Firm Juris No. 425545 · Connecticut · 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 single-attorney shop that runs a high filing-volume, discovery-and-contempt-driven practice and prevails on most of the contested motions it brings before judges it appears before frequently. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns that follow describe where that volume shows up and what procedural tools and rules correspond to each one.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is discovery pressure + contempt + fee leverage. Three numbers define them:

• 2.3 discovery motions per case (124 total — the single largest marker in the file) — discovery is the main area of activity. Add 13 discovery objections and the pattern is clear: substantial filing activity occurs around the process well before the merits are reached.
• 1.1 contempt motions per case (60 total — including 40 post-judgment and 13 pendente lite) — contempt is a frequently-filed motion for this firm, not a rare one. Contempt allegations appear early and recur, and the post-judgment count shows they continue after judgment.
• 1.35 counsel-fee requests per case (73 mentions; 5 fee motions pendente lite) — the firm routinely places the other side's fees in question. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a recurring cost-of-litigation theme in the record.

Add 1.6 continuances per case (87) and the full picture emerges: an extended timeline, heavy discovery and contempt activity, and ongoing fee questions are characteristic features of this firm's contested cases.

The filing barrage — and who sees it most

Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~22.8 filings on the docket per case. But the volume is not evenly distributed:

• The record shows more filings against unrepresented opponents, not fewer. Against a pro-se opponent: 26.7 filings/case (25 such cases). Against a represented opponent: 19.5/case (29 cases). On these numbers, a self-represented party faces roughly 37% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest volumes on record: Roncolato v. Landa-Chesnut (FST-FA16-6027071-S) — 108 firm filings (the firm's all-time high); McInerney v. McInerney (FBT-FA23-6129458-S) — 86, against a pro-se opponent; Truitt v. Truitt (FST-FA17-6031227-S) — 74, against a pro-se opponent.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: McInerney v. McInerney (FBT-FA23-6129458-S) — 86 firm filings; Truitt v. Truitt (FST-FA17-6031227-S) — 74; Stenson v. Stenson (FBT-FA18-6072082-S) — 60 — each involving a party with no attorney of record.

This filing volume is the core of the attrition-leaning pattern. The data indicates that self-represented opponents are statistically the firm's heavier-paper profile; the section below describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in about 5.6% of their cases (3 of 54), and the firm moves for GAL appointment 29 times across its history (0.54 per case). GAL involvement is real but not the centerpiece — where it appears, it functions as a custody-related lever rather than a routine appointment.
• There is no evidence in this record of the firm repeatedly pairing with the same small set of guardians ad litem. Across its few GAL cases the guardians are distinct, so the relevant data point is the rate of GAL use rather than a known rotation.

Procedural context: when a GAL is proposed, a party may research the proposed individual's prior pairings with this firm. The appointment order is the instrument that can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and timeline open-ended.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Donna Heller (23 appearances) more than any other judge, then Tindill (19), Colin (16), Grossman (9), Kowalski (8), and Emons (8). Their 77% contested-motion win rate reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances mean exposure to each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. Familiarity with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is information a self-represented party can also obtain.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a discovery-and-contempt attrition pattern, the relevant question is what procedural tools and rules correspond to each pattern above. Six pattern-and-tool pairings:

1. The discovery pattern. Discovery is the firm's single biggest marker (2.3 motions/case, plus PB §13-14 compliance motions). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for compliance and sanctions motions. A documented response record is what establishes which party complied. Where discovery demands are overbroad, the motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use to limit them.

1. The contempt pattern. With 1.1 contempt motions per case — 40 of them post-judgment — contempt activity is a recurring feature, and the post-judgment count shows it can continue after the divorce is final. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the kind of evidence that determines how a contempt motion resolves on the documents.

1. The fee pattern. The firm places fees in question at 1.35 mentions per case. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own documentation of motion volume and continuances is the kind of record relevant to a §46b-62 analysis of which side drove litigation cost.

1. The continuance pattern. Continuance is the firm's #1 filing type (84) — about 1.6 per case. 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 puts the basis for each continuance before the court.

1. The filing-volume pattern. The data shows pro-se opponents are associated with ~37% more filings (26.7 vs 19.5/case). A tracked filing log, calendared deadlines, and a complete response to each motion are the case-management practices that correspond to a high-volume docket; missed deadlines are what can convert volume into defaults.

1. The merits. The firm's pattern is high activity on the process. A short, merits-focused record (custody, support, division) is the alternative posture available to any party. Whether filing volume affects the outcome depends on whether the substantive questions are reached and decided.

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.