Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Kennedy Luce LLC
Firm Juris No. 027220 · 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.
Limited sample (32 contested cases) — treat rates as indicative, not definitive.
Snapshot
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 32 | A small but active contested-family practice |
| Home turf | Hartford (HHD): 12, then New Britain (HHB): 8, Stamford/Norwalk (FST): 7 | Hartford-area courts are their base; Fairfield is a secondary front |
| Side they take | 12 plaintiff / 20 defendant | More often defense counsel — they tend to answer and respond rather than set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 10.6 | A motion-heavy, attrition style for a firm this size |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 79% (63 granted vs 17 denied, of 80 decided) | When a contested motion is decided, it more often resolves in their favor |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Leslie Olear (24), then Susan Connors (18), Robert Nastri (14) | They appear before a familiar Hartford-region bench |
Bottom line: a motion-aggressive firm that prevails on most of what it files in front of judges it appears before regularly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns below describe where that volume concentrates.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is fee leverage + discovery pressure + clock control. Three numbers define them:
- 5.25 counsel-fee mentions per case (168 total; 5 fee motions pendente lite) — they routinely put the other side's ability to pay, and the cost of fighting, in front of the court. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the recurring pressure point: the cost of continued litigation is itself placed at issue.
- 3.3 discovery motions per case (107 total; 19 motions to compel) — discovery is a heavily-used front. The effect is to make the process expensive and time-consuming before the merits are reached.
- 1.8 contempt motions per case (58 total — 30 post-judgment, 19 pendente lite, plus general) — contempt is used as a working tool, not only as a last resort. Allegations of violating orders appear frequently, especially after judgment.
Add 3.0 continuances per case (96) and the full picture emerges: an extended timeline, sustained discovery and contempt activity, and the fee question kept active throughout the case.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, Kennedy Luce's side puts ~28.4 filings on the docket per case (910 filings over 32 cases). And the volume is not evenly distributed:
- They file more against represented opponents than self-represented ones. Against a represented opponent: 31.7 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 20.1/case. The heavier paper load lands where there's another lawyer on the other side — but a self-represented spouse still faces a 20-filing average without an attorney to absorb it.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Laporte v. Nunes (HHD-FA17-5045405-S) — 122 filings (the firm's high-water mark); Kopec v. Kopec (HHD-FA24-5084413-S) — 77; Tannoux v. Tannoux (HHD-FA22-6156487-S) — 66; Fordsman v. Fordsman (FST-FA22-6057666-S) — 54; Dolan v. Dolan (HHD-FA17-6075839-S) — 37.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Shakir v. Anwar (FST-FA19-5022035-S) — 35 filings (pro se); Hale v. Hale (HHD-FA18-6097414-S) — 29 (pro se); King v. Jackson (HHD-FA23-6174235-S) — 27 (pro se); McDougall v. Kleebatt (HHD-FA16-6066385-S) — 23 (pro se). Dozens of filings in cases where the opponent had no attorney.
This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket volume is itself the defining feature of how this firm litigates. Where an opponent is self-represented, the filing pace on record has often exceeded what one person answering alone could readily keep up with — an asymmetry the procedural information below describes.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 84 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Order | 44 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Objection to Motion | 39 | Responds to the other side's motions before they're heard |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 30 | Puts the opponent on defense after judgment, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 19 | Same pressure, before judgment |
| Motion to Compel | 19 | Discovery activity — typical opening move |
| Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony | 6 | Targets the opponent's experts at trial |
| Motion for Counsel Fees PL | 5 | Fee leverage |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 5 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody fights |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 28.1% of their cases (9 of 32) — and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 5 times. GALs feature as a custody lever in their practice, not only as a neutral afterthought.
- They repeatedly pair with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (one recurring GAL appears in 3 of their cases). When a firm and a GAL appear together more than once, that recurring pairing is a fact a party may want to be aware of.
What this means as information: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with this firm are part of the public record. The scope, budget, and reporting deadline of a GAL appointment are matters the appointment order can define; an appointment order that leaves these undefined leaves the cost and the scope open-ended. These are features of how GAL appointments work, described here so a party knows what the order can address.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Leslie Olear (24 rulings) more than any other judge, then Susan Connors (18), Robert Nastri (14), Leo Diana (11), and Barry Armata (10). Their ~79% grant rate on decided motions reflects, in part, familiarity — repeat appearances mean familiarity with each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A self-represented opponent's information gap on the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is one a party can narrow by reviewing those public orders.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a 10.6-motions-per-case attrition firm, the relevant procedural tools and rules each correspond to a specific pattern above. The following is descriptive information about how those tools and rules work — not a recommendation about what to do in any case.
- Fee leverage and what governs fee awards. Fee leverage is their loudest signal (5.25 fee mentions per case). In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation conduct a court may consider; the cost driven by motion practice is something the record can reflect on either side.
- Discovery responses and the non-compliance basis for sanctions. They make heavy use of discovery motions (3.3 per case; 19 motions to compel). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions or a motion to compel. A documented, timely response record is what a court looks to when discovery disputes arise; a targeted objection is the procedural vehicle for contesting an over-broad demand.
- Contempt motions — especially after judgment. With 1.8 contempt motions per case and 30 post-judgment contempts on record, contempt activity is common once orders enter. A contempt finding turns on whether an order was violated; contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidence a court weighs. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents does not result in a finding.
- Continuances and the Motion to Advance. They average 3.0 continuances per case (84 motions for continuance). A continuance can be opposed on the record, and a Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner. Each is a standard part of family-court scheduling practice; whether either is appropriate depends on the case.
- Objection to Motion. Objection to Motion is their third-most-common filing (39). An objection responds to a pending motion; a well-grounded motion that is self-supporting on the documents gives a boilerplate objection less to contest. A request for argument is the procedural means by which a party asks the court to hear the matter live rather than decide it on the papers alone.
- GAL scope. A GAL appears in over a quarter of their cases, and they reuse the same one. The proposed name's prior pairings with this firm are part of the public record. Scope, budget, and a reporting deadline are matters an appointment order can define — described here so a party understands what the order can address. This firm's model is volume-driven on the process; a short, merits-focused record is the structural counterweight that record itself describes.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Grant 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, and with only 80 decided motions the rate is indicative, not definitive. 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.