Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Fogarty Cohen & Nemiroff LLC

Firm Juris No. 018292 · Lower Fairfield County, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (30 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

Bottom line: a small, motion-aggressive shop that files heavily and prevails on most of what it puts to a judge in courts it appears before constantly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns it leaves on the docket are described below.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 6.9 discovery motions per case (206 total) — motions to compel (16), protective orders under PB 13-5 (22) and general (16), plus commissions for deposition (13) and discovery objections (94). Discovery is the firm's primary battlefield. The effect is to make the process expensive and exhausting well before a matter reaches the merits.
• 9.3 counsel-fee touches per case (279 mentions; 12 fee motions pendente lite) — by far their loudest signal. The litigation is routinely steered toward who pays. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the recurring pressure point: the cost of litigating can be made to fall on that opponent.
• 2.2 contempt motions per case (67 total — 20 post-judgment, 19 general, 16 pendente lite) — contempt functions here as a working tool, not a last resort. An accusation of violating orders is a common feature of these cases.

Add 1.0 continuance per case (30) and a baseline of 16.6 motions per case, and the full picture emerges: a high-volume discovery and fee/contempt practice that keeps the meter running, with cases frequently resolving on terms favorable to the firm.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~44 filings on the docket per case (1,328 filings across 30 cases) — a very heavy paper load for a 30-case sample. The volume itself, rather than any single motion, is the defining characteristic of how these dockets develop.

The heaviest barrages on record:

• Connell v. Connell (FST-FA20-6046036-S) — 332 filings, the firm's all-time high on this sample.
• Schwabe v. Schwabe (FST-FA01-0184276-S) — 118 filings.
• Graham v. Graham (FST-FA10-4018082-S) — 117 filings.
• Swift v. Carolan (FST-FA15-6026007-S) — 100 filings, against a self-represented opponent.
• Kilts v. Kilts (FST-FA19-6043491-S) — 62 filings, against a self-represented opponent.

When this firm digs in, the docket can run to the hundreds of filings. The procedural-options section below describes the rules and tools that come into play in this kind of paper-heavy, asymmetric matter.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in only ~3% of their cases (1 of 30), and they move for GAL appointment just 10 times across the sample. On this record, the firm is not GAL-driven — custody fights here are run mostly attorney-to-attorney rather than routed through a guardian ad litem.
• There is no detectable pattern of the firm repeatedly pairing with the same guardians ad litem on this sample.

What this means: a GAL request in a case involving this firm is statistically the exception here, not the norm. When a GAL is appointed, the appointment order is the instrument that can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment is, as a structural matter, an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Stanley Novack (19 entries) most, then Tindill (17), McLaughlin (14), Schofield (13), and a tail of Shay, Malone, Harrigan, and Colin. Their high grant rate is partly familiarity — they know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. Familiarity with an assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is something that develops with exposure to that bench.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a 16-motions-per-case attrition practice, the most useful thing a self-represented person can have is information about the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern above. The following describes what those tools are and what each pattern is — it is general information, not a recommendation about any specific case.

1. The discovery dynamic. With 6.9 discovery motions per case (and 94 discovery objections), discovery is this firm's primary battlefield. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, timely response is what a "compliant party" record looks like. A protective-order motion is the procedural tool a party may use when discovery demands are claimed to be excessive. Completeness of the responding record is also what bears on the fee analysis described below.

1. The contempt pattern. At 2.2 contempt motions per case, a contempt motion is a recurring feature of these matters. Contempt turns on proof of non-compliance with a specific order; contemporaneous documentation of compliance (payments, exchanges, communications) is the record that bears on whether such a motion is sustained. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents is one that, on the record, does not succeed.

1. The fee-leverage pattern. Counsel fees are this firm's single loudest signal (9.3 touches per case). Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own motion volume — here, 44 filings per case and 16.6 motions per case — is part of the litigation-conduct record that a court may consider under that statute.

1. The clock and continuances. This firm averages a continuance per case, which lengthens 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, and a court may require the party seeking a continuance to state its basis.

1. The GAL question. GALs appear in only ~3% of these cases, so a GAL request involving this firm is unusual on this record. When a GAL is appointed, the appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline can be defined, as opposed to an open-ended mandate.

1. Volume versus the merits. This firm's defining feature is the volume of process it generates — cases here can run into the hundreds of filings. The substantive questions in a family matter (custody, support, division) are decided on the merits regardless of filing count. A short, clean, merits-focused record is one way that volume becomes less determinative; the substance of the case is what a court resolves.

Methodology & limits

Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Grant rate" = Granted ÷ decided contested motions on the firm's own filed motions where the docket records an outcome; many entries record no outcome and are excluded, and on a 30-case sample the decided-motion pool is small, so treat the rate as indicative only. 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.