Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Costello Brennan Devidas Sasso and Sincl

Firm Juris No. 413584 · Connecticut · 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 constantly. Its volume is its defining feature; the public record, focus, and procedure are where that volume matters least.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 2.5 discovery motions per case (511 total) — including 92 motions to compel. Discovery is the primary battleground. The pattern makes the process expensive and time-consuming well before the merits are reached.
• 2.3 counsel-fee requests per case (467 mentions; 24 fee motions pendente lite) — the firm routinely asks the court to make the other side pay its fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the practical pressure point: litigation against this firm may carry a fee-shifting risk.
• 1.6 contempt motions per case (320 total — 103 post-judgment, 92 pendente lite, 71 general) — contempt is a frequently-filed motion here, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations commonly appear early and often.

Add 1.3 continuances per case (267) and the full picture emerges: a long timeline, a heavy discovery and contempt docket, and a running fee meter — an attrition style in which settlement pressure builds over time.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts 26.0 filings on the docket per case. And the volume tilts toward the least-equipped opponent:

• The filing count is higher against unrepresented opponents, not lower. Against a pro-se opponent: 26.78 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 25.42/case. The party least equipped to respond receives the heaviest paper load.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Forbes v. Forbes (FST-FA19-6044467-S) — 202 filings, against a self-represented opponent; Bombart v. Bombart (FST-FA17-6030946-S) — 143 filings, pro se; Scandura v. Silva (FBT-FA17-6066881-S) — 137 filings, pro se.
• Other heavy pro-se dockets: McTiernan v. McTiernan (FST-FA02-0189494-S) — 106 filings; Ogundipe v. Ogundipe (FBT-FA14-4047770-S) — 95 filings. The three biggest barrages on record all involved a party with no attorney.

This is the core of the attrition model: the docket itself carries the pressure. Self-represented opponents are, on the numbers, the profile that draws the most filings — a notable asymmetry worth understanding in advance. The section below describes what tends to appear and the procedural options the rules make available.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• GAL appears in 9.3% of their cases (19 of 204), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 26 times. The pattern uses GALs as a custody lever rather than a neutral afterthought.
• The firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (3 appearances each). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that recurring pairing is part of the public record.

What the rules provide: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record that a party can research. A party may ask the court to appoint a GAL from outside any recurring rotation, and the appointment order can be asked to define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline. An unscoped GAL appointment is, structurally, an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Ronald Kowalski (42) more than any other judge, then Truglia (39), Heller (35), Hartley Moore (29), and Colin (24). Their 81% contested-motion win rate is partly familiarity — recurring appearances mean recurring exposure to each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. Those standing orders and a given judge's motion practice are public, and the gap in familiarity narrows as a self-represented opponent learns the assigned judge's procedures.

What to expect — and your procedural options

For a 7-motions-per-case attrition firm, the firm's volume is its defining feature rather than the strength of any single motion. The items below describe what each pattern is, and the procedural tools the rules make available in response. They are descriptions of how the process works, not recommendations for any particular case.

1. The discovery pattern. This firm runs on discovery motions — 2.5 per case, including 92 motions to compel. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions and motions to compel. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use when discovery demands are overbroad. A record showing complete, documented, timely responses is what addresses a non-compliance narrative and bears on the fee-shifting question.

1. The contempt pattern. With 1.6 contempt motions per case (320 on record), contempt motions are common here — post-judgment as readily as pendente lite. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidentiary basis on which a contempt motion is decided. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends not to succeed.

1. The fee-leverage pattern. This firm files 2.3 fee-related items per case. Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record the court may consider on a fee question.

1. The continuance pattern. Motion for Continuance is this firm's single most-filed motion (230) — about 1.3 per case. 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. These are the standard mechanisms by which the schedule is set and contested.

1. The GAL pattern. This firm moves for GAL appointment 26 times and recurringly appears with the same few guardians (3 appearances each). The proposed name's prior pairings are public record; a party may ask for a GAL outside a recurring rotation and ask that the appointment order specify scope, budget, and deadline.

1. The volume pattern overall. This firm's model centers on the process — 26 filings per case, more of them directed at pro-se opponents. The firm's volume is its defining feature. A short, focused, merits-oriented record is the counterweight that the rules and the docket reward; the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are the matters the court ultimately decides, and filing volume on its own does not resolve them.

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.