Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Ferrara Law Group P.C.
Firm Juris No. 432587 · 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
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 87 | A steady-volume family-law practice |
| Home turf | Bridgeport (FBT): 26, then Hartford (HHD) and New Haven (NNH) at 18 each | Fairfield County is their base, but they range statewide |
| Side they take | 70 plaintiff / 17 defendant | They file first the overwhelming majority of the time — they tend to set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 0.69 | Below the contested-firm norm — this is not a motion-flood shop |
| Filings per case | 5.98 | A moderate paper load |
| Contested-motion win rate | 91% (21 granted vs 2 denied) | When they put a motion in front of a judge, it almost always lands |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Corinne Klatt (4), then Adelman (3), Morgan (3), Kenefick (3) | No single dominant judge — they spread across many benches |
Bottom line: a plaintiff-side firm that files first, keeps its motion count low, and prevails on nearly everything it does file. The paper volume here is modest; the defining feature of this firm's record is the high conversion rate on the few motions it files.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is plaintiff-side control with selective, high-conversion motions. Three numbers define them:
- Plaintiff in 70 of 87 cases (≈80%). They strongly prefer to be the party that files first and frames the case. The record shows them tending to set the schedule, the issues, and the opening narrative.
- 0.69 motions per case, but a 91% grant rate on decided motions. They do not litigate by volume. They file few motions and prevail on nearly all of them. In the aggregate record, each motion this firm files appears chosen deliberately and tends to succeed where it is recorded as decided.
- Continuance is their most-used motion (24 of 60 motions; a continuance marker in ~29% of cases). The most common thing this firm asks a court for is more time. The pattern is one of managing the clock more than the merits.
Add a meaningful counsel-fee footprint (fee-related markers in ~25% of cases) and the picture is of a firm whose pattern is to control pace and posture rather than to file in high volume.
The filing pattern — and who sees the most
Across all cases, Ferrara's side puts ~6.0 filings on the docket per case — a moderate load. But the volume is not evenly distributed:
- They file more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 6.7 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 4.37/case. In this dataset, the party without a lawyer sees roughly 50% more paper than one with counsel.
- The heaviest filing count on record: Sideleau v. Sideleau (FBT-FA13-4041850-S) — 36 filings, the firm's all-time high in this dataset (opponent represented). That is the outlier; most of their cases sit far below it.
A self-represented party in a case against this firm falls within the heavier-load profile by these numbers. The absolute filing counts here remain modest in context — this is not a hundreds-of-filings attrition machine.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 24 | Controls the clock — their single most-used motion |
| Motion for Order | 10 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Order Post-Judgment | 4 | Reaches back into closed cases to enforce or adjust |
| Motion to Seal File (PB 11-20A / 25-59A) | 4 | Keeps the record out of public view |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 3 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody fights |
| Motion for Counsel Fees | 3 | Fee leverage |
| Motion for Order of Notice | 3 | Service / procedural setup |
GAL strategy
- GAL appears in only ~1.1% of their cases (1 of 87), and they move for GAL appointment just 3 times across the dataset. By the numbers, a guardian ad litem is the exception in this firm's practice, not a default tactic. There is no evidence here of a recurring, repeated pairing with the same guardian(s).
What this means: a GAL appointment is statistically unusual for this firm. When a GAL is appointed, the appointment order is the document that ordinarily defines scope, budget, and a reporting deadline. An appointment order that leaves scope undefined leaves cost and risk open-ended — a consideration that holds even with a firm that rarely seeks a GAL.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Corinne Klatt (4 rulings) more than any other judge, then Adelman, Morgan, and Kenefick (3 each), with several others close behind. Unlike a single-courthouse shop, this firm has no dominant home judge — their work is spread across many benches statewide. The implication of that spread is that the firm does not rely on deep familiarity with one judge's habits, and the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice are public and knowable to any party.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is a low-volume, high-conversion firm — not an attrition mill. The defining features of the record are plaintiff-side framing and a high grant rate on a small number of motions. The following items describe the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each observed pattern. They are descriptions of how the process works, not recommendations for any case.
- Framing and the order of filing. This firm is plaintiff in ~80% of cases and the record shows it setting the agenda. As a matter of procedure, any party may file its own statement of the issues (custody, support, division). A clear early statement of the disputed questions is what puts a party's own framing in front of the court alongside the opening narrative.
- What the 91% grant rate reflects. Their motion count is low (0.69/case) but their grant rate on decided motions is ~91%. As a general matter, grant rates of that kind reflect motions that are unopposed or under-opposed as well as those decided on the merits. A motion that draws a complete, on-time, rule-cited objection on the record is decided on a fuller record than one that draws no response.
- The continuance pattern and the clock. Continuance is their most-used motion (24 filings; a marker in ~29% of cases). 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 two mechanisms the rules provide for influencing the pace of a case.
- Seal motions and the governing standard. They move to seal the file at a notable rate (4 seal motions; markers in ~8% of cases). Sealing in CT requires specific findings under Practice Book §§11-20A / 25-59A. A motion to seal is measured against that standard, and the public-records presumption is the default the standard is built around.
- Counsel-fee requests and the governing factors. They make counsel-fee requests at a meaningful rate (fee markers in ~25% of cases). Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct under C.G.S. §46b-62. Because litigation conduct is one of the statutory factors, the conduct of both parties — including the timeliness and completeness of responses — is part of what the statute directs the court to weigh.
- The pro-se filing differential and the role of the record. Against unrepresented opponents this firm files ~50% more (6.7 vs 4.37/case). A dated record of every filing, every order, and the responses to each is the documentary backstop that any party relies on. For a firm whose record is defined by conversion rather than volume, a complete and organized docket record is the common reference point for the court.
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.