Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Heller Heller & McCoy

Firm Juris No. 027155 · New London Judicial District (KNO) · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (35 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 single-district practice with a moderate motion pace, more often on defense than offense. The decided-motion sample is too small to publish a win rate. The notable markers are the discovery, fee, and contempt patterns below — and the fact that the unrepresented opponent draws a noticeably heavier paper load.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is moderate volume with steady pressure on cost and compliance. Three markers define them:

• Continuance and discovery are their two most common levers — continuance markers appear in 49% of cases and discovery motions in 46%. Together they shape the tempo: the clock is stretched while the process burden sits on the other side before the merits arrive.
• Counsel-fee leverage in 43% of cases — they regularly tee up fee questions. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, that is a notable cost dimension: litigation against this firm has historically carried a cost-shifting question.
• Modification and contempt as recurring post-judgment tools — modification markers in 37% of cases and contempt in 34%. They are comfortable reopening judgments and raising compliance questions post-decree, not just litigating to a single final order.

Exclusive-possession markers (20%) round out a style oriented toward control of the household status quo while the case runs.

The filing pattern — and who sees the most

Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~11.5 filings on the docket per case. But the load is not evenly distributed:

• They file more against unrepresented opponents. Against a pro-se opponent: 14.59 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 8.67/case. The party least equipped to respond carries roughly 68% more paper — a meaningful asymmetry in this firm's record.
• The heaviest filing volumes on record: Beers v. Beers (KNO-FA19-6104641-S) — 28 filings (opponent self-represented); Jacques v. Watterson (KNO-FA22-6107505-S) — 25 filings; Hadley v. Roux (KNO-FA19-5106688-S) — 23 filings (opponent self-represented); Page v. Page (KNO-FA20-6106025-S) — 21 filings (opponent self-represented); Charbonnier v. Rooney (KNO-FA19-5106883-S) — 20 filings (opponent self-represented).
• Four of the five heaviest cases ran against a self-represented opponent — the asymmetry is not an accident of one case.

For a self-represented party, the data point is that this firm's record skews toward the heavier-load profile — the procedural options below describe how the system handles that asymmetry.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A guardian ad litem appears in 0% of their recorded cases (0 of 35). Despite GAL-appointment markers surfacing in some custody files, no docket in this sample shows a GAL actually seated. On this record, the firm does not rely on GALs as a custody lever.
• Because no GAL is present in the sample, there are no recurring firm–GAL pairings to note here.

What this means: a GAL proposal from this firm would be a departure from its recorded pattern. Generally, an appointment order can define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Kenneth Shluger (9) and Hon. Matthew Necci (9) most, then Hon. James Devine (4), Hon. John Carbonneau (3), and Hon. Susan Connors (3). This is a small, repeated bench in a single district — the firm knows each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A self-represented opponent's familiarity gap with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice narrows as those become known.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Each item describes a pattern above and the procedural rules or tools that relate to it. This is descriptive information, not a recommendation about any specific case.

1. The continuance lever. Continuances are this firm's single most-filed motion (16) and their top marker (49% of cases). A continuance can be opposed on the record; where a party wants a matter heard sooner, a Motion to Advance is the procedural tool used to ask the court for an earlier hearing. These are the mechanisms the rules provide around scheduling.

1. The discovery pattern. Discovery markers appear in 46% of their cases. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, timely response record is the factual record of compliance.

1. The fee-leverage pattern. Fee markers appear in 43% of their cases. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record a court may weigh.

1. The reopened-judgment pattern. With modification markers in 37% of cases and six Motions to Open and Modify Judgment plus six Post-Judgment Contempt motions, a case may not end at the decree. Final orders, parenting plans, and payment records remain relevant long after judgment in this firm's cases.

1. The contempt pattern. Contempt markers appear in 34% of cases. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion unsupported by the documents tends not to hold up before a bench the firm appears before repeatedly.

1. The heavier pro-se paper load. The firm puts 14.59 filings/case on the docket against unrepresented opponents versus 8.67 against represented ones. For a self-represented party, an indexed system for tracking and answering filings is what keeps pace with that volume; limited-scope ("unbundled") counsel is one option Connecticut permits for the heaviest stretches.

1. The withdrawal pattern. They filed four Motions for Permission to Withdraw Appearance. A firm exiting a case is not the same as the case resolving — a party's own deadlines and obligations continue regardless of who appears across the table.

This firm's volume against unrepresented opponents is its defining feature in this sample; the items above describe the procedural framework that surrounds that pattern, not steps to take in any particular matter.

Note on win rate: the decided-motion sample for this firm is too small to report a contested-motion win-rate percentage. Do not assume the firm wins or loses motions at any particular rate from this profile.

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.