Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Anthony & Reale
Firm Juris No. 405796 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (35 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
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 35 | A small, single-attorney shop — sample is modest |
| Home turf | Bridgeport (FBT): 17, then Waterbury (8), Ansonia/Milford (4), Danbury (4) | Greater Bridgeport is their court |
| Side they take | 25 plaintiff / 10 defendant | Files first far more often than not — tends to set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 4.03 | A motion-active practice, weighted toward continuances and discovery |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 92% (35 granted vs 3 denied) | When the firm puts a contested motion on the record it usually prevails — but on a thin 38-motion decided sample |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Ronald Kowalski (6), then Dembo (5), Hartley Moore (4) | They appear repeatedly before a handful of Bridgeport/Waterbury judges |
Bottom line: a single-attorney firm that files first, leans on discovery and continuances, and prevails on most of what it puts in front of judges it appears before regularly. This firm's defining features are filing volume, the record it builds, and procedure — the patterns below describe each of those in turn.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery activity + calendar control + a steady contempt cadence. Three numbers define them:
- 1.11 discovery motions per case (39 total) — discovery is the firm's primary area of activity. The effect is to make the process lengthy and resource-intensive before a matter reaches the merits.
- 1.0 continuance per case (35 total; their single most-filed motion) — the timeline reliably stretches. Delay tends to be a recurring feature of how these cases proceed rather than an occasional event.
- 0.77 contempt motions per case (27 total) — contempt is a routine filing for this firm, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations are common, and responding to them is a frequent part of these dockets.
Add 0.8 GAL-appointment markers per case (28) and 0.6 modification motions per case (21), and the full picture emerges: active discovery, calendar control, contempt and modification motions in regular rotation, and a docket that stays busy over time.
The filing barrage — and who sees it most
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~19.3 filings on the docket per case (676 total). The load is not evenly distributed:
- The firm files more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 23.8 filings/case (12 such cases). Against a represented opponent: 17.0/case (23 cases). The party least equipped to respond sees the heaviest paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 40% more filings than one with a lawyer.
- The heaviest dockets on record: Novotny v. Novotny (FBT-FA09-4030793-S) — 48 filings (pro se opponent); Gjuraj v. Gjuraj (FST-FA17-5016778-S) — 39 (pro se); Brozyna v. Brozyna (FBT-FA23-6121226-S) — 37 (pro se); Inconstanti v. Inconstanti (DBD-FA24-6051813-S) — 36; Kistner v. Tracy (UWY-FA16-4036128-S) — 35 (pro se).
- Concentrated on self-represented opponents specifically: four of the firm's five heaviest dockets were against parties with no attorney — Novotny (48), Gjuraj (39), Brozyna (37), Kistner (35), plus Sheckfee v. Sheckfee (FBT-FA24-6139046-S) at 30.
This is the core of the model: filing volume is the defining feature, and it falls most heavily on self-represented opponents. The sections that follow describe the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern above.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 34 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Order | 18 | General-purpose / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment (PL) | 9 | Locks in early pendente lite terms |
| Motion for Contempt (PL) | 9 | Shifts the matter to a compliance dispute, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 7 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody fights |
| Motion to Compel | 6 | Discovery dispute — opening filing |
| Motion for Extension of Time re Discovery | 5 | Stretches the discovery clock |
| Motion for Contempt (Post-Judgment) | 5 | Keeps compliance disputes active after judgment |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in only 8.6% of their cases (3 of 35) — below what the firm's GAL-motion activity (7 appointment motions, 28 GAL-related markers) might suggest. Where a GAL does enter, it tends to function as a custody lever rather than a neutral afterthought.
- The decided GAL appearances do not show any one guardian ad litem recurring across this firm's cases, so there is no reliable repeat-pairing pattern to report here — GAL involvement is best tracked by rate, not by name.
Information. When a GAL is proposed, the proposed name is a matter of public record that a party can research independently. An appointment order can define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL is, descriptively, an open-ended cost and an open-ended responsibility for whoever bears it.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Ronald Kowalski (6) more than any other judge, then Dembo (5), Hartley Moore (4), Rapillo (4), and Truglia (3). Their high grant rate is partly familiarity — a small firm that returns to the same Bridgeport/Waterbury judges becomes accustomed to their preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That familiarity advantage narrows as an opposing party becomes equally familiar with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice, which are themselves public.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is a discovery-and-calendar-intensive practice. The items below describe what each pattern above tends to look like, and the procedural tools and rules that correspond to it. They are descriptions of how the process works, not recommendations for any specific case.
- The discovery pattern. Discovery is the firm's most-used area of activity (1.11 discovery motions/case). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; documented, timely responses are what a record of compliance consists of. Where requests are overbroad, a protective motion is the procedural tool a party may use to limit their scope.
- The continuance pattern. Continuance is the firm's single most-filed motion (34 — 1.0 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, procedurally, something the requesting party must justify to the court.
- The contempt pattern. With 0.77 contempt motions per case (27 total, including 9 pendente lite and 5 post-judgment), contempt filings are common in this firm's cases. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidentiary record on which a contempt motion is decided. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail, and its outcome is itself part of the record before a judge the firm appears before regularly.
- The pro-se asymmetry. The firm files roughly 40% more against pro-se opponents (23.8 vs 17.0 filings/case). For a self-represented party, this means a higher-than-average volume of filings is a realistic expectation. An organized, indexed, on-time record is what reduces the practical effect of that volume difference.
- The GAL question. GALs appear in only 8.6% of their cases, though the firm moves for appointment (7 times). When a GAL is proposed, the name is publicly researchable, and the appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline can be set out in writing.
- The merits vs. process distinction. The model is built on the process — discovery and timeline. A focused, well-documented, merits-oriented record is the procedural counterweight to filing volume; the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are what the court ultimately decides. This firm's volume is its defining feature, and a record organized around the merits is what makes that volume less determinative.
A note on the win rate. Their 92% grant figure rests on only 38 decided motions across 35 cases. It indicates a firm that prevails on what it litigates, but the sample is thin — it is best read as a caution rather than a settled conclusion, and no single motion's outcome can be inferred from an aggregate rate.
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; 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.