Litigation-Pattern Profile: Berchem Moses PC
3 attorneys of record · Fairfield/New Haven County, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (34 contested cases) — treat rates as indicative, not definitive.
What this is. A data-driven overview of how this firm appears in contested divorce and custody cases on the public record, and the procedural tools and patterns that show up around it. 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) | 34 | A moderate-volume contested-divorce shop |
| Home turf | Bridgeport (FBT): 21, then New Haven (NNH): 8, Stamford (FST): 4, Torrington (AAN): 1 | Greater Bridgeport is their court |
| Side they take | 23 plaintiff / 11 defendant | Files first about two-thirds of the time — often the party setting the initial agenda |
| Motions per case | 6.21 (211 motions) | A motion-active, pressure-driven style |
| Contested-motion win rate | 78% (decided motions where the docket records a result) | When a motion they file reaches a recorded outcome, it is usually granted |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Daniel Klau (19), then Sommer (7), Grossman (6) | Frequent appearances before the assigned bench |
Bottom line: a motion-active firm that prevails on most of what reaches a recorded decision, with a measurable pattern of filing more against unrepresented opponents. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the record and the applicable procedural rules are where that volume is tested.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is fee leverage + contempt + clock control. Three rates define them:
- 1.77 counsel-fee requests per case (60 mentions) — their single most frequent marker. They routinely position the court to consider making the other side pay their fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the recurring pressure point, with cost itself framed as a consequence of continued litigation.
- 1.47 contempt motions per case (50 total — 21 pendente lite, 10 post-judgment, 6 general) — contempt is a primary, frequently-filed motion for this firm rather than a last resort. Accusations of order violations tend to appear early and repeatedly, building a "bad actor" record on the docket.
- 1.21 continuances and 1.21 discovery motions per case (41 each) — the timeline is stretched while pressure on disclosure is maintained. The effect is to make the process expensive and time-consuming well before the merits are reached.
Put together, the pattern is: shift fees, build a contempt narrative, and control the clock — a posture that tends to push the other side toward settling on the firm's terms.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, Berchem Moses's side puts 22.18 filings on the docket per case. The volume is not evenly distributed:
- They file more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 27.14 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 18.7/case. The party least equipped to respond receives the heaviest paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 45% more filings than one with a lawyer.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Gervais v. Gervais (NNH-FA18-6086582-S) — 97 filings (pro se opponent); Alexandrou v. Alexandrou (FST-FA19-6043705-S) — 62; Bleakley v. Bleakley (FBT-FA15-6051156-S) — 44 (pro se); Calderon v. Medina (FBT-FA16-5032191-S) — 42 (pro se); Maida v. Maida (FBT-FA22-6118361-S) — 39.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Gervais — 97 (peak rate 3.6 filings/month); Bleakley — 44; Calderon v. Medina — 42; Scherban v. Scherban (NNH-FA23-6132036-S) — 37; Marino v. Tryon (FBT-FA18-5036207-S) — 25. The five heaviest pro-se cases on record were all against opponents with no attorney.
This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket's sheer volume is itself the defining pressure. For a self-represented party, the data indicates that an unrepresented opponent fits the heaviest-volume profile in this firm's history — the section below describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to exactly that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 34 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 21 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Order | 18 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Objection | 16 | Opposes the opponent's relief |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment — PL | 15 | Locks in early position |
| Objection to Motion | 11 | Opposes the opponent's relief |
| Motion for Order of Notice | 10 | Procedural setup |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 10 | Maintains pressure after judgment |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 17.6% of their cases (6 of 34), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 11 times. GALs tend to be used as a custody lever in these cases rather than a neutral afterthought.
- The sample does not show a clear repeat-GAL rotation for this firm — but GAL involvement at this rate is a notable feature in any custody matter.
What the record shows: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with this firm are a matter of public record that can be reviewed. The appointment order is the instrument that can define scope, budget, and reporting deadlines; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and reporting open-ended.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Daniel Klau (19 appearances) far more than any other judge, then Sommer (7), Grossman (6), Tindill (6), Kowalski (5), Klatt (5), Truglia (4), and Hartley Moore (4). Their roughly 78% win rate on decided motions is partly a function of familiarity — repeated appearances build knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That familiarity gap narrows when an opposing party learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a motion-active attrition pattern, the central observation is that the firm's volume is its defining feature; merits, the record, and the applicable rules are where that volume is tested. Six patterns above, and the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each:
- Fee leverage. Counsel fees are this firm's most frequent move (1.77 per case). In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A firm's own motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that a court may consider; manufactured expense is information that cuts both ways.
- Contempt motions. With 1.47 contempt motions per case — most of them pendente lite — contempt is a frequently-filed motion in this firm's practice. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with every order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a contempt motion is measured against. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail, and repeated unsupported motions are themselves part of the record before judges the firm appears before regularly.
- The clock. This firm averages 1.21 continuances per case to stretch timelines. 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. These are the mechanisms by which the pace of a case is contested rather than left to default.
- Discovery. With 1.21 discovery motions per case, the discovery process is a recurring pressure point. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A complete, documented, on-time response is what the record reflects as compliant conduct; where demands are excessive, a targeted objection or protective motion is the corresponding procedural tool. The same record that shows compliance is also relevant to the fee-conduct analysis above.
- The pro-se asymmetry. This firm files 27.14 filings/case against unrepresented opponents versus 18.7 against represented ones — roughly 45% more paper directed at the party least equipped to answer it. Not every filing carries the same weight; some are tied to deadlines or substantive consequences and some are not. Limited-scope ("unbundled") counsel — representation for discrete, high-stakes matters only — is one option available in Connecticut for a self-represented party.
- The merits. This firm's model centers on the process. A short, focused, merits-oriented record is the structural counterpoint to high filing volume: fewer motions, well-supported filings, and the substantive questions (custody, support, division) moved to the front. The data indicates filing volume is this firm's central lever; a record built on the merits is where that lever has the least purchase.
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.