Opposing-Counsel Playbook: COHEN GARY I LAW OFFICES OF PC

Firm Juris No. 010008 · Lower Fairfield 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 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 well-resourced, motion-aggressive firm that prevails on most of what it files in front of judges it appears before often. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the publicly observable contrasts in the record are focus, documentation, and procedure.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 7.2 discovery motions per case (711 total) — including motions to compel (59) and protective orders (49). Discovery is where much of their activity concentrates. The pattern tends to make the process expensive and time-consuming before a case reaches the merits.
• 5.9 counsel-fee mentions per case (581 total; 66 fee motions pendente lite, 37 general fee motions) — they routinely ask the court to make the other side pay their fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the pressure point: continued litigation can carry a fee-shifting risk.
• 3.0 contempt motions per case (300 total — 110 post-judgment, 63 pendente lite, 60 general) — contempt is a frequently-filed motion here, not a last resort. Accusations of order violations appear early and often in their dockets.

Add 2.8 continuances per case (273) and the full picture emerges: a stretched timeline, heavy discovery and contempt activity, and a running fee meter — a profile consistent with cases that resolve on the firm's terms.

The filing barrage — and who sees it heaviest

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~53 filings on the docket per case — among the heaviest paper loads in the corpus. The volume is not evenly distributed:

• The filing rate is higher against unrepresented opponents, not lower. Against a pro-se opponent: 66.9 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 49.8/case. The party least equipped to respond sees the heaviest paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 34% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Brody v. Brody (FST-FA08-4014434-S) — 462 filings (the firm's all-time high); Connell v. Connell (FST-FA20-6046036-S) — 332; Rossell v. Rossell (FST-FA17-6032506-S) — 194; Massa v. Massa (FST-FA22-6058828-S) — 184.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Buehler v. Buehler (FST-FA06-4010473-S, pro se) — 179 filings; Stephens v. Stephens (FST-FA17-6030486-S, pro se) — 148; Cox v. Cox (FST-FA18-6068673-S, pro se) — 130; Guzzino v. Guzzino (FST-FA22-6056344-S, pro se) — 130; Styrcula v. Styrcula (FST-FA04-0198591-S, pro se) — 116. Hundreds of filings in matters where the opposing party had no attorney.

This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket itself carries the pressure. The data indicates that self-represented opponents are the profile that sees the highest filing volume from this firm. The procedural-options section below describes the tools and rules that bear on exactly that asymmetry.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 10.1% of their cases (10 of 99), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 87 times across their docket. GALs feature as a custody lever in this firm's practice.
• No small set of recurring guardians stands out clearly enough in the data to name a repeat-pairing pattern; GAL involvement here is best read by rate (the ~10% above), not by any one recurring guardian.

Relevant information: When a GAL is proposed, a party's prior pairings with the proposing firm are part of the public record and can be researched. The appointment order is the instrument that defines a GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and scope open-ended.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Donna Heller (85 rulings) far more than any other judge, then Schofield (54), Kowalski (46), Colin (44), Tindill (42), Malone (38), Shay (33), Emons (32). Their ~70% contested-motion grant rate reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances build knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. That familiarity gap narrows as the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice become known to any party.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a 21-motions-per-case attrition firm, the publicly available procedural tools and rules map onto the patterns above. The following describes what to expect and what each tool is:

1. Discovery activity. At 7.2 discovery motions per case, motions to compel and protective orders are a recurring feature. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool available to a party facing over-broad demands. A complete, on-time, documented response record is what supports a position that one party is the compliant party — which bears on the fee-shifting question.

1. Contempt activity. With 3.0 contempt motions per case — 110 of them post-judgment — contempt motions are common here, including after a divorce is final. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the documentary basis on which a contempt motion is evaluated; a contempt motion that is not supported by the documents does not succeed.

1. Fee leverage. With 581 counsel-fee mentions and 66 fee motions pendente lite, fee-shifting requests are a recurring pattern. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's motion volume and continuances are part of the docket record and are among the factors relevant to litigation-conduct analysis.

1. The clock. This firm averages 2.8 continuances per case (245 motions for continuance). 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 moving party must justify.

1. Filing volume asymmetry. A pro-se opponent here faces 66.9 filings/case vs 49.8 for a represented one. A clean index of every filing received and every response made is the kind of record that documents this asymmetry; where paper volume crosses from substance into harassment, the rules of practice provide avenues for relief that a court can consider on the record.

1. The merits. This firm's model centers on the process — 53 filings and 21 motions per case. A short, focused, merits-oriented record is the structural contrast to a high-volume one. Whether the substantive questions (custody, support, division) reach the front of a case is shaped by how the record is built; this firm's volume is its defining feature, and a focused record is the observable alternative to matching it.

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.