Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Hardy Law Group LLC
Firm Juris No. 443459 · 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) | 65 | A steady, mid-volume family-court practice (single attorney of record) |
| Home turf | Bridgeport (FBT): 21, then New Britain (HHB): 11, Hartford (HHD): 9 | A Fairfield-plus-central-Connecticut footprint, not lower-Fairfield |
| Side they take | 27 plaintiff / 38 defendant | More often the responding party — they react and counter more than they set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 4.42 | A moderate motion load — not a high-volume motion shop |
| Contested-motion win rate | 84% (110 granted vs 21 denied) | When they put a motion in front of a judge, it usually lands |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Barry Armata (25), then Moore (17), Dembo (17) | They appear before a familiar central-CT bench |
Bottom line: a focused, single-attorney shop that files a manageable number of motions but wins most of them, and that leans heavily on one procedural tool — the continuance. The defining features of this practice are its focus, its use of the record, and its control of timing.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is continuance-driven pacing + selective discovery pressure, executed by a single attorney with a high hit rate. Three numbers define them:
- 2.19 continuances per case (142 total; "Motion for Continuance" is their single most-filed motion at 138) — the continuance is the firm's defining move. The practice runs on controlling the clock: stretching the timeline, resetting hearings, and keeping the case moving on the firm's schedule.
- 1.42 discovery motions per case (92 total) — discovery is a real but secondary battlefield: motions to compel (4), extensions of time re discovery (13), and discovery objections (5). They use discovery pressure surgically, not as a carpet-bombing strategy.
- An 84% grant rate on decided motions (110 of 131 decided) — when they choose to put something on the record, it works far more often than not. The volume is moderate; the conversion is high.
Add the side split — more often the defendant (38) than the plaintiff (27) — and the picture is a reactive, efficiency-minded practice: don't over-file, control timing, and win the motions they do bring.
The filing volume — and who sees the most
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~15.15 filings on the docket per case — moderate, not overwhelming. But the distribution is revealing:
- They file more against represented opponents, not less. Against a represented opponent: 16.5 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 13.85/case. Unlike some firms, the paper load here is heaviest where there's a lawyer on the other side — though a self-represented opponent still faces a substantial docket.
- The heaviest filing counts on record: Lofton v. Lofton (HHB-FA21-5028470-S) — 67 filings (the firm's all-time high); Dzurenda v. Dzurenda (FBT-FA18-6070684-S) — 51; Rivera v. Rinaldi (HHD-FA18-5050423-S) — 42 (opponent self-represented).
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Rivera v. Rinaldi (HHD-FA18-5050423-S) — 42 filings; Lawson v. Aderinkola (HHD-FA24-6189106-S) — 34; Magliulo v. Boddie (FST-FA24-5031086-S) — 29; Forrest v. Johnson (HHB-FA23-6081370-S) — 23; Lane v. Lane (DBD-FA23-5019584-S) — 21. Dozens of filings appear in cases where the opposing party had no attorney.
If a party is self-represented, the absolute filing count tends to run somewhat lighter than against a represented opponent — but the cases above show the firm does maintain a deep docket against unrepresented parties. The observed pattern is sustained, well-paced filing activity rather than a single overwhelming wave.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 138 | Controls the clock — the defining tool |
| Objection to Motion | 18 | Reactive defense — they push back on the other side's motions |
| Motion for Order of Notice | 18 | Service / procedural setup |
| Motion for Extension of Time re Discovery | 13 | Buys time on discovery deadlines |
| Motion to Waive Entry Fee / Pay Costs of Service | 8 | Fee-waiver / cost mechanics |
| Objection | 8 | More reactive defense |
| Motion for Order | 7 | General-purpose agenda-setting |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 6 | Enforcement after judgment |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in just 4.6% of their cases (3 of 65) — well below the levels seen at custody-heavy firms. A guardian ad litem is the exception in this practice, not a routine play, even though the firm has moved for GAL appointment in a handful of matters (24 appointment-related markers across the history).
What this pattern means: because GAL involvement is uncommon in this firm's history, a GAL proposal stands out against the firm's baseline and may signal that the firm sees a custody advantage in adding a third decision-maker. When a GAL is appointed, the appointment order is the document that can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline up front — an unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Barry Armata (25 rulings) more than any other judge, then Moore (17), Dembo (17), Diana (11), and Rapillo (11). Their 84% decided-motion grant rate reflects, in part, familiarity — repeat appearances before a known central-Connecticut bench mean they know each judge's calendar habits and motion preferences. Familiarity with an assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is information that is publicly available to any party.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is a continuance-driven, high-conversion practice whose defining feature is its control of timing. The descriptions below pair each observed pattern with the neutral, publicly available procedural rules and tools that relate to it.
- The clock. The continuance is the firm's single most-used tool — 138 filed, 2.19 per case. A Motion to Advance (Practice Book §44-17) 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 be asked to require a stated reason for each one. These are the mechanisms that exist around scheduling and timing.
- Motion discipline and conversion. They file a moderate 4.42 motions per case but win 84% of the decided ones. As a factual matter, volume is not this firm's distinguishing trait — conversion is. A motion that is fully supported and documented is what reduces the chance of an avoidable denial; that is what the high-conversion pattern describes.
- Discovery timing. With 1.42 discovery motions per case and frequent extensions-of-time, the observed pattern includes deadline activity around discovery. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions, and a complete, documented response is what makes the record reflect compliance.
- Reactive posture. They are the defendant in 38 of 65 cases and rely on Objection / Objection to Motion (26 combined) more often than they lead. The firm's history skews toward responding to the other side's agenda rather than setting its own; an objection is, by its nature, a response that must carry its own weight before the court.
- GAL appointment terms. GALs appear in only 4.6% of their cases, so a GAL proposal departs from the firm's baseline. The appointment order is the document where scope, budget, reporting deadline, and the proposed person's independence can be addressed.
- The merits record. The firm's defining feature is pacing and procedure, not overwhelming volume. The substantive questions in a family case — custody, support, division of property — are decided on the merits record; this firm's volume and timing patterns are the context within which that record is built.
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.