Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Collins & Powers LLC Attorneys at Law

Firm Juris No. 300089 · 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 motion-aggressive firm that files at extraordinary volume and prevails on most of what it puts in front of judges it appears before constantly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the contrasting profile in the public data is a focused, merits-centered record that relies on procedure rather than matching filing counts.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 5.6 discovery motions per case (375 total) — motions to compel (37), protective orders (32), commissions for deposition (27). Discovery is where much of the activity concentrates. The pattern tends to make the process expensive and time-consuming well before the merits are reached.
• 3.1 contempt motions per case (208 total — 94 post-judgment, 57 pendente lite, 33 general) — contempt is filed routinely rather than as a last resort. Allegations of order violations appear early and often in this firm's cases.
• 3.1 counsel-fee mentions per case (205) — fee exposure runs through their cases. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the pressure point: the prospect that continued litigation may carry a fee cost.

Add 3.3 continuances per case (223) and the full picture emerges: a lengthened timeline, a heavy load of discovery and contempt motions, and ongoing fee exposure that, in the aggregate, tends to drive cases toward settlement on terms the firm favors.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~47.3 filings on the docket per case — an exceptionally heavy paper load. And the volume is not evenly distributed:

• They file more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 49.6 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 46.2/case. The party least equipped to respond receives the heavier load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 7% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Zhou v. Zhang (FST-FA13-4026445-S) — 244 filings (the firm's all-time high); Bulochnik v. Selig (FST-FA22-5027243-S) — 194; Achoa v. Achoa (FST-FA16-5016019-S) — 182.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Thunelius v. Posacki (FST-FA12-4022936-S, opp. pro se) — 164 filings; Ostrand v. Ostrand (FST-FA03-0196689-S, opp. pro se) — 134; Oliva Sainz de Aja v. Irazu (FBT-FA09-4057168-S, opp. pro se) — 104. Hundreds of filings in matters where the opposing party had no attorney.

This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket volume itself is the defining dynamic. The data indicate that a self-represented party in one of this firm's cases is statistically in the heaviest-filing profile — the section below describes the procedural tools and rules that bear on that asymmetry.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 17.9% of their cases (12 of 67), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 38 times. GALs feature as a custody-related lever in this firm's practice rather than an occasional add-on.
• No single guardian ad litem recurs often enough across the public docket to indicate a fixed pairing — but a GAL appears in nearly one in five of their cases, so one may be proposed in any contested-custody matter.

Context: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record. An appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment is, by its nature, an open-ended cost and an open-ended commitment.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Donna Heller (73 rulings) far more than any other judge, then Colin (44), Tindill (33), DeCastro-Tunnard (27), and Malone (26). Their 71% contested-motion win rate reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances before the same judges, whose preferences, calendar habits, and motion practices become known. A self-represented opponent who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice narrows that familiarity gap.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a ~19-motions-per-case attrition firm, the public data point to several recurring patterns and the procedural tools and rules that bear on each. The following is descriptive — what the patterns are, and what the relevant tools do — not a recommendation for any specific case.

1. The discovery dynamic. At 5.6 discovery motions per case, this firm's activity concentrates on motions to compel and protective orders. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; the motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use when discovery demands are claimed to be excessive. A record showing timely, documented compliance bears directly on which party is positioned as compliant and on the fee analysis.

1. The contempt pattern. With 3.1 contempt motions per case (94 of them post-judgment), contempt filings are common and may continue past judgment. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order — payments, exchanges, communications — is the evidentiary basis on which a contempt motion is decided. A contempt motion unsupported by the documentary record is one a judge can deny.

1. The fee-exposure pattern. With 205 counsel-fee mentions across their cases, fee requests are a recurring feature. 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 litigation-conduct record the court considers.

1. The clock. This firm averages 3.3 continuances per case, and Motion for Continuance (199) is its single most-filed motion. 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. Each continuance is a request the moving party must justify.

1. The GAL question. A GAL appears in nearly one in five of their cases. When one is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with this firm are part of the public docket record, and an appointment order can specify scope, budget, and a reporting deadline.

1. Volume versus the merits. This firm's model centers on the process — 47 filings per case, heaviest against the unrepresented. The contrasting profile in the data is a short, merits-focused record: fewer motions, each well-supported, with the substantive questions (custody, support, division) at the front. Matching a firm that filed 244 filings in a single case is not the variable the data point to; the firm's volume is its defining feature, and a focused record is the alternative pattern the public docket reflects.

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.