Opposing-Counsel Playbook: FINCH KEVIN W. LAW OFFICE

Firm Juris No. 419172 · 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 motion-aggressive solo shop with a high contested-motion win rate before judges it appears in front of constantly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the data points that most distinguish a case here are focus, the record, and procedure.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 1.42 discovery motions per case (95 total) — discovery is a primary battleground. The effect is to make the process costly and time-consuming well before the merits are reached.
• 1.19 continuances per case (80 total) — the timeline is routinely extended. Delay keeps the fee meter running and tends to bear hardest on an opponent with fewer resources.
• 0.66 contempt motions per case (44 total — 13 post-judgment, 11 pendente lite, plus general) — contempt is used as a working tool, not only as a last resort. A contempt allegation is a recurring feature of this firm's cases.

Add 0.55 counsel-fee requests per case (37 total) — requests that the court order the other side to pay fees — and the full picture emerges: pressure on the process through discovery, control of the clock through continuances, and cost-shifting kept on the table.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~22.1 filings on the docket per case (1,481 filings across 67 cases). The volume is essentially the same whether or not the opponent has a lawyer:

• Against a pro-se opponent: 22.72 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 21.74/case. The paper load barely changes — a self-represented spouse faces effectively the same volume as one with counsel, but with far fewer resources to answer it.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Nassra v. Nassra (FBT-FA08-4027130-S) — 110 filings (the firm's all-time high); Pavia v. Pavia (FBT-FA20-6092989-S) — 88; Ganim v. Ganim (FBT-FA09-4029457-S) — 71.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Pollock v. Pollock (FBT-FA18-6079704-S) — 68 filings (pro se); Taber v. Taber (FBT-FA19-6085904-S) — 48 (pro se); Bradshaw-Minore v. Minore (NNH-FA23-6129003-S) — 41 (pro se); Kamp v. Kamp (NNH-FA24-6145213-S) — 38 (pro se). Dozens of filings in cases where the opponent had no attorney.

This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket itself carries the pressure. For a self-represented opponent, the filing load historically does not let up — the asymmetry described below is the defining feature of these matchups.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A guardian ad litem appears in 14.9% of their cases (10 of 67), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 19 times (42 GAL-appointment markers overall). GALs are used as a custody lever here, not as a neutral afterthought.
• No reportable pattern of the same guardians ad litem recurring across this firm's cases emerged in the data, so GAL use here is best understood by rate of use, not by repeat pairings.

Context: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name is a matter of public record that can be researched independently. An appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Anthony Truglia (16) and Hon. Jane Grossman (16) more than any others, then Adelman (15), Hartley Moore (10), Grasso Egan (9), Murphy (8), Griffin (8), and Kowalski (7). Their 77% contested-motion win rate is partly familiarity — repeated appearances mean familiarity with each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That familiarity gap narrows for a self-represented opponent who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This is a firm that averages 6.4 motions per case. The patterns above each correspond to procedural tools and rules that exist in Connecticut family practice. The following describes what those tools are and what the corresponding pattern looks like; it is information, not direction.

1. The discovery war. At 1.42 discovery motions per case, motions to compel are a common opening move. A motion to compel rests on a claim that discovery was incomplete or late; responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for such a motion. A documented, complete response record is what a court looks to when a compliance dispute arises, and it bears on the fee analysis below.

1. The clock. This firm averages 1.19 continuances per case, which extends timelines. 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. The contempt motion. With 0.66 contempt motions per case (and 16 contempt motions plus post-judgment and PL variants on record), a contempt allegation is a recurring feature of these cases. A contempt motion turns on documented violation of a court order; contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidence a court weighs against such a motion. A contempt motion unsupported by the documents tends not to succeed.

1. The fee leverage. With 0.55 counsel-fee requests per case (37 total), this firm frequently asks courts to shift fees to the other side. Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record a court may consider in that analysis.

1. The pro-se filing load. The data shows the filing load against unrepresented opponents (22.72/case) is essentially identical to represented ones (21.74/case). Being self-represented has not historically corresponded to a lighter docket against this firm; the volume of filings, deadlines, and orders to track is comparable either way.

1. Process vs. merits. This firm's model centers on the process, and at a 77% contested-motion win rate it prevails on most of what it files. The procedural rules that compress a case toward its merits — and the substantive questions (custody, support, division) themselves — are the part of the record least affected by filing volume. This firm's volume is its defining feature; a focused, well-documented record is the variable least correlated with that volume.

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.