Opposing-Counsel Playbook: D Susanne Snearly

Firm Juris No. 411872 · 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

Note on win rate: the firm's decided-contested-motion sample is too small (20 decided motions) to report a reliable win-rate percentage. Treat the raw counts above as directional only.

Bottom line: a small, Waterbury-centered practice whose pressure comes less from motion volume than from a steady stream of routine filings and fee positioning. This firm's volume and fee positioning are its defining features; the record and procedural posture are where that profile is most visible.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is fee leverage + the continuance habit + selective discovery pressure. Three numbers define them:

• 2.17 counsel-fee references per case (63 total; 2 fee motions pendente lite) — fee positioning is the most frequent marker in the firm's file. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the pressure point: the cost of litigation is a recurring theme in how the firm frames its cases.
• 0.83 continuances per case (24 total; also their single most common motion type) — they reach for the continuance routinely. The timeline tends to stretch, and a request to move faster is something a party would typically have to justify.
• 0.93 discovery motions per case (27 total) — discovery is a real, if not dominant, battlefield. They use it selectively rather than as a wall, but they will use it.

Contempt (0.31/case, 9 total) and modification (0.21/case) round out the picture: a practice that applies steady, conventional family-law pressure rather than an overwhelming motion barrage.

The filing pattern — and who sees it most

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~16.6 filings on the docket per case. And the volume is not evenly distributed:

• They file more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 17.88 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 15.0/case. The party least equipped to respond sees the heavier paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 19% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest volumes on record (each against a self-represented opponent): Perez v. Perez (UWY-FA23-6070680-S) — 40 filings; Boone v. Esemuede (UWY-FA17-6033191-S) — 36; Lamay v. Lamay (UWY-FA15-6028882-S) — 34; Young v. Young (UWY-FA25-6091307-S) — 26; Van Egas v. Arbelaez (UWY-FA25-6085581-S) — 28 (represented).
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: the same top three (40 / 36 / 34) plus Young v. Young (26) and Reddick v. Reddick (UWY-FA23-6073688-S) — 23. Dozens of filings each, in cases involving people with no attorney.

For a self-represented party, the data indicates this profile is where the heaviest filing volume tends to land. The section below describes the procedural options that exist in this situation.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 13.8% of their cases (4 of 29), and the firm moves for GAL appointment at a rate of about 0.48 per case (14 appointment markers). When custody is contested, a GAL is a real possibility — not a guarantee.
• No repeat-GAL pattern is reportable from this sample: the guardians who appeared did not recur often enough to flag a recurring pairing.

Information: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior docket history is a matter of public record. An appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and reporting open-ended.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Anna Ficeto (7) more than any other judge, then Rapillo (6), Winslow (4), and Murphy (4), with Lawlor, Cutsumpas, Nastri, and Schofield appearing once or twice. The familiarity edge is real but narrow — the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice are public, and a self-represented opponent who learns them closes the gap.

What to expect — and your procedural options

For a steady-pressure family-law practice, this firm's volume is its defining feature. Below are the patterns above, each paired with the procedural rules and tools that exist in Connecticut family practice — described as information, not as a recommendation about any specific case.

1. Fee positioning. Fee positioning is this firm's most frequent marker (2.17/case). Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A court considering a fee request may weigh which party's filing volume and continuances drove the cost; filing volume and continuance history are part of the docket record.

1. The timeline. Continuance is both this firm's top marker (0.83/case) and its single most-filed motion (23). 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, which puts the burden on the moving party to justify the delay.

1. Discovery. With ~0.93 discovery motions per case, discovery responses are a documented part of these cases. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A targeted, specific objection is the procedural response to an over-broad request; the record reflects which party complied and when.

1. Contempt motions. Contempt PL and post-judgment together are a recurring filing for this firm. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion that is not supported by the documents fails, and the docket records that outcome.

1. The filing volume. This firm files ~19% more against unrepresented opponents (17.88 vs 15.0/case). Filing count and case merit are distinct; a clean index of every filing and response is what lets a party — or the court — see where volume diverges from substance.

1. GAL appointments. A GAL appears in ~14% of this firm's cases. A written scope, budget, and reporting deadline in the appointment order are the terms that bound a GAL's role and cost; the proposed name's prior docket history is public.

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, and where the decided sample is too small no rate is reported. 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.