Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Bruce Alan Foodman
Firm Juris No. 401211 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (29 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) | 29 | A small, owner-operated practice — one attorney across the file |
| Home turf | Danbury (DBD): 10 and Bridgeport (FBT): 10, then Stamford/Norwalk (FST: 8), Waterbury (1) | Splits time across Danbury and Bridgeport, with a strong Stamford presence |
| Side they take | 19 plaintiff / 10 defendant | Files first nearly two-to-one — they tend to set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 7.97 | A motion-heavy, attrition style |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 78% (0.784) | When a contested motion reaches a recorded outcome, it is usually granted |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Anthony Truglia (13), then Heidi Winslow (10), Maureen Murphy (7) | They appear before a familiar bench |
Bottom line: a motion-aggressive solo shop whose contested motions are granted at a high rate in front of judges it appears before regularly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the record and procedure are the variables that most shape outcomes.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + contempt + fee leverage. Three rates define them:
- 1.55 discovery-related motions per case (45 total) — discovery is the firm's main battlefield. The effect is to make the process expensive and time-consuming before the merits are reached.
- 1.24 contempt motions per case (36 total — split evenly between pendente lite and post-judgment) — contempt is a routinely-used motion here, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations tend to appear early and often.
- 1.14 counsel-fee mentions per case (33 total) — fee-shifting is routinely placed in play. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the recurring pressure point: the firm raises the prospect that continued litigation may carry a cost to the other party.
Add 1.28 continuances per case (37 total) and the full pattern emerges: stretch the timeline, apply discovery and contempt pressure, and keep the fee question in play.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~22.2 filings on the docket per case. But the volume is not evenly distributed:
- They file more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 28.1 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 19.6/case. The party least equipped to respond receives the heaviest paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 43% more filings than one with a lawyer.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Flavin v. Flavin (FST-FA09-4024430-S) — 62 filings (against a pro-se opponent); Boyd v. Boyd (FBT-FA16-6059494-S) — 53 filings; Frutos v. Frutos (FST-FA16-6029328-S) — 50 filings (against a pro-se opponent).
This is the core of the attrition model: the docket itself carries the pressure. A self-represented party falls within the profile that, in this sample, draws the heaviest filing volume — the section below describes the procedural tools and patterns most relevant to that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Order | 49 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Continuance | 36 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Contempt PL | 15 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 15 | Keeps the pressure on after judgment |
| Motion to Compel | 7 | Discovery dispute — opening salvo |
| Motion for Alimony PL | 7 | Locks in support posture early |
| Motion for Protective Order | 7 | Shields their client's disclosure while compelling the opponent's |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 6 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody disputes |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 17.2% of their cases (5 of 29), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment (6 such motions on record). GAL appointments here function as a custody lever rather than a neutral afterthought.
- The sample does not show a recurring stable of the same guardians ad litem; GAL use here is best read by rate, not by repeat pairing.
For context: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with this firm are a matter of public record and can be researched. An appointment order that defines scope, budget, and a reporting deadline up front bounds the cost and the role; an unscoped GAL leaves both open-ended.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Anthony Truglia (13) more than any other judge, then Heidi Winslow (10), Maureen Murphy (7), Margarita Hartley Moore (5), and Donna Heller (5). Their 78% contested-motion grant rate is partly familiarity — they appear before these judges often enough to know each one's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That familiarity gap narrows as a self-represented opponent learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is an ~8-motions-per-case attrition firm, and its filing volume is its defining feature. The information below describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern above — what each tool is, and what the pattern is — rather than any course of action for a particular case.
- The discovery pattern. The firm runs on discovery motions (1.55/case). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented response record is what a court looks to on that question. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use to limit demands that are overbroad. Where the record shows complete and timely responses, the non-compliance narrative and the fee argument that rides on it have less to work with.
- The contempt pattern. With 1.24 contempt motions per case, a contempt motion is a common feature of this firm's practice. A contempt motion is tested against the record of compliance — contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidence a court weighs. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail, and a failed motion is itself part of the record before a familiar judge.
- The fee-leverage pattern. Fee-shifting is placed in play in most of this firm's cases (1.14 mentions/case). Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that the statute makes relevant.
- The continuance pattern. The firm averages 1.28 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. Each continuance is a request the moving party has to justify.
- The pro-se asymmetry. The firm files ~43% more against self-represented opponents (28.1 vs 19.6 filings/case). Filing volume on one side does not require a matching volume in response; an organized index of every filing and a calendar of every deadline are the administrative tools that keep a high-volume docket manageable. Under CT practice, not every filing requires a response — what does and does not require an answer is defined by the rules and the assigned judge's orders.
- The merits question. This firm's model centers on the process, and at 78% on contested motions, that process favors the firm in front of familiar judges. The countervailing variable is a focused, documented, merits-oriented record. The substantive questions in a family case — custody, support, division of property — are decided on their own evidence, and filing volume does not determine how those questions resolve.
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.