Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Bansley Anthony Burdo LLC
Firm Juris No. 423814 · New Haven 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 family 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Cases (as P/D counsel) | 68 | A focused, mid-volume family practice |
| Home turf | New Haven (NNH): 64, with one each in Bridgeport, Hartford, New London, Waterbury | NNH is overwhelmingly their court |
| Side they take | 2 plaintiff / 66 defendant | Almost always the responding party — they defend, they don't set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 1.19 | Lean. This is not a motion-heavy attrition shop |
| Contested-motion outcomes | 66 decided, all granted | Their few filed motions go through — but read the next line |
| Busiest judges | A flat spread; no judge appears more than once on record | No single "home judge" advantage |
Bottom line: a defense-side, paternity/support-focused practice that files lightly but files motions that tend to succeed. The pattern that defines them is not volume — it is the genetic-test / habeas motion, run in cases where opponents are overwhelmingly self-represented. Understanding what that one move does, and how it is met on the record, is the central feature of this firm's docket.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature here is narrow and procedural, not a paper barrage. Three numbers define them:
- Defense posture (66 of 68 cases on the defendant side). This firm is hired to respond, not to launch. They are reacting to the other side's complaint, which means their pattern is built around the issues the other side raised — most often paternity and support — rather than expanding the fight.
- The genetic-test motion is the whole game. 49 of their 81 motions are Motions for Genetic Test, plus 20 Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Together those two account for roughly 85% of everything they file. This is a paternity/parentage-and-support practice wearing a family-court label — establish (or contest) parentage, then address support from there.
- Low motion intensity (1.19 motions/case, 2.18 total filings/case). This is not a practice that buries the docket in paper. The activity is concentrated: the same motion type, on parentage or custody of the child.
The discovery markers confirm it: only 4 discovery motions across 68 cases (0.059 per case), one exclusive-possession motion, one continuance, one discovery objection. This is not an attrition firm. It is a precision firm.
The filing pattern — and where it concentrates
Across all cases, this firm's side puts only 2.18 filings on the docket per case — light by family-court standards. But the load is sharply uneven:
- Against a self-represented opponent: 1.75 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 11.33 filings/case. That is the opposite of the usual attrition pattern. 65 of their 68 opponents are pro se, and those cases stay thin; the rare case against a lawyer (3 of 68) draws roughly six times the paper. In other words, paternity/support matters stay lean against unrepresented parties, and the filing volume rises only when there is counsel on the other side.
- The heaviest case on record: Cronan v. Cronan (NNH-FA17-6067354-S) — 20 filings, opponent represented. That is the firm's all-time high, and it is a represented case, consistent with the split above.
A self-represented party is statistically the majority of this firm's docket, and the data indicates those cases tend to stay procedurally narrow. The defining variable here is not volume; it is the parentage motion and its consequences. The section below describes what to expect from that pattern and the procedural tools that exist around it.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Genetic Test | 49 | The core filing — establish or contest parentage |
| Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus | 20 | Produce the child / secure presence; custody pressure |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment – Pendente Lite | 3 | Interim orders while the case is pending |
| Motion for Alimony, Custody & Child Support | 2 | Full-relief support motion |
| Motion for Extension of Time | 2 | Buys filing time |
| Motion for Continuance | 1 | Rarely used — not a delay shop |
| Objection re Discovery or Disclosure | 1 | Discovery is a sideshow here |
GAL strategy
- GAL appears in 0% of their cases (0 of 68). A guardian ad litem is simply not part of this firm's pattern. There are no recurring GAL pairings to flag, and no GAL-cost exposure visible in the record. A GAL proposal in a matter involving this firm would be out-of-pattern for its docket.
What the data shows: because GAL use is absent from the record, GAL-cost dynamics seen in other firms' patterns do not appear here. The recurring drivers in these cases are the parentage and support questions.
The bench
No judge appears more than once in this firm's outcome record (Hon. Jose Suarez, Hon. Anna Ficeto, and "by the court" each once). There is no home-judge advantage visible in the data — the consistency comes from doing the same narrow motion repeatedly, not from familiarity with one bench. In this firm's pattern, the motion type is the constant, not the judge.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is a lean, parentage-focused defense firm, and the docket pattern is built around one recurring move. The points below describe what the data shows and the procedural tools and rules that exist around each pattern.
- What the genetic-test motion does (49 of 81 motions). This is the firm's signature filing. A Motion for Genetic Test is routinely granted in parentage matters — the record here shows their decided motions all went through. The result of the test is what drives downstream support and custody questions; the legal consequences of a parentage determination are what shape the rest of the case, so they are the substance behind this motion rather than the motion itself.
- Precision, not volume. At 1.19 motions/case and 2.18 filings/case, this is not a firm whose pattern is to exhaust an opponent with paper. A short, accurate, on-time record is what keeps a matter from generating the non-compliance bases that this docket does not currently show.
- The habeas / produce-the-child move (20 applications). An Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this context concerns securing the child's presence. Complying precisely with such an order and documenting that compliance is what keeps non-compliance from becoming an issue — non-compliance is the factor that can turn an otherwise thin case heavy.
- The represented-case escalation (11.33 vs 1.75 filings/case). The data shows this firm files roughly six times more paper when the opponent has a lawyer. That cuts both ways: retaining or consulting counsel is associated, in this firm's pattern, with a higher filing pace; cases that remain pro se tend to stay procedurally narrow. This is a documented tradeoff in the record, not a prediction about any one matter.
- Pattern-specific, not borrowed. GAL use is 0%, continuances are 1 in 68, discovery motions are near-zero. The dynamics that define discovery-war, delay-oriented, or GAL-leverage firms do not appear in this firm's record. Parentage and support are where these cases are decided according to the data.
Procedural tools that exist in CT family practice (general information). 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. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. These are descriptions of what the rules and tools are — they are not recommendations about whether or how to use them in any specific case.
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.