Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Law Offices of Mark M. Kratter, LLC

Firm Juris No. 423850 · Lower Fairfield County, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (26 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-attorney practice with a moderate filing tempo overall, but one that escalates sharply on a handful of cases — and files the heaviest against self-represented opponents. On this record, the firm's defining features are focus, the documentary record, and procedural pacing rather than sheer volume.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is continuance-driven pacing with selective escalation. Three numbers define them:

• 1.81 continuances per case (47 total) — far and away their most-used tool. The continuance is the firm's default move: it controls the clock, stretches the timeline, and lets delay do work. On this record, the calendar, not the merits, tends to be the first battleground.
• 1.08 discovery motions per case (28 total) and 1.08 counsel-fee touches per case (28 total) — discovery activity and fee-related filings run in parallel, each appearing about once per case on average. Disclosure pressure and the question of who pays both show up regularly.
• 0.58 contempt motions per case (15 total) plus 0.62 modification touches (16) — contempt and post-judgment modification are part of the kit but used selectively, not reflexively. When they appear in the record, they tend to be targeted rather than boilerplate.

Add it up and the pattern is measured-but-persistent: pace the case with continuances, apply discovery and fee activity at a steady clip, and reserve contempt for cases where it is likely to have effect.

The filing volume — and who sees the most

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~17.3 filings on the docket per case — a moderate load on average. But the average hides a sharp asymmetry:

• The firm files more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 20.7 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 13.3/case. The party least equipped to respond sees roughly 55% more paper — a self-represented spouse faces the heavier docket.
• The heaviest filing volumes on record: Akter v. Kibria (FST-FA22-5026044-S) — 84 filings (the firm's high-water mark, against a represented opponent); Washer v. Washer (DBD-FA15-5009424-S) — 79 filings, opponent pro se; Moll v. Pajo (DBD-FA19-6029729-S) — 43 filings, opponent pro se.
• More heavy cases against self-represented opponents: Braun v. Schapiro (FST-FA17-6031665-S) — 35 filings, pro se; Calderon v. Espinoza (FST-FA17-6033369-S) — 27 filings, pro se; Soni v. Sethi (FST-FA22-6057984-S) — 23 filings, pro se.

This is the heart of the pattern: most cases stay moderate, but on the cases where the firm digs in — and especially where the other side has no lawyer — the docket itself carries the pressure. A self-represented opponent in one of this firm's cases is statistically more likely to be in the heavier-load profile.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in only 3.8% of their cases (1 of 26) — well below the volume seen at high-GAL custody shops. On this record, a guardian ad litem is the exception, not the firm's standard custody lever. They did move for GAL appointment in a small number of cases (gal_appointment marker rate 0.46/case), but actual GAL presence on the docket is rare.

What this means: because GAL presence is rare in this firm's history, a GAL proposed in one of its cases is a notable departure from its usual practice. Connecticut practice allows the appointment order to define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment is, as a general matter, an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Heidi Winslow (8) most often, then Hon. Joseph Vizcarrondo (7) and Hon. Donna Heller (7), with Nascimento and Truglia (4 each) close behind. Their 76% motion grant rate is partly familiarity — repeated appearances before the same FST judges build knowledge of each judge's preferences and motion practice. That familiarity gap tends to narrow as a self-represented opponent becomes acquainted with the assigned judge's standing orders. (The decided-motion sample here is small, so the grant rate reads as a tendency, not a guarantee.)

What to expect — and your procedural options

This firm's two most reliable patterns are pacing (the continuance) and volume on an unanswered docket. Below, each pattern above is paired with the neutral procedural information that corresponds to it. These describe what the tools and rules are — not a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.

1. The clock. This firm's single most-used filing is the continuance (45 of them; 1.81 per case). In Connecticut practice, 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. Continuances are this firm's default pacing mechanism.

1. The pro-se filing gap. This firm files ~55% more against unrepresented opponents (20.7 vs 13.3 filings/case). As a matter of docket mechanics, the asymmetry in this pattern depends on filings going unmet; a docket where each filing is met on time and in writing is one where that asymmetry does not accumulate.

1. Discovery activity. With ~1.08 discovery motions per case, disclosure activity is common in this firm's cases. Responding to discovery completely and on time, with each response documented, is what removes a non-compliance basis for discovery sanctions.

1. Contempt and post-judgment activity. Post-judgment contempt is this firm's #2 motion type (8), and contempt overall runs 0.58/case. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with an order — payments, exchanges, communications — is the evidentiary record that a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion contradicted by the documents is, as a general matter, less persuasive to the bench.

1. Fee-related filings. Counsel-fee touches run ~1.08 per case. Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62), so the record of which party's conduct drove litigation cost is relevant to how a court weighs a fee request.

1. Tempo overall. This firm's overall tempo is moderate (3.73 motions/case), and most of its cases stay that way; the heavy cases in the data are heavy in filing volume on the opposing side's docket. This firm's volume is its defining feature only in a subset of cases — a short, merits-focused record is the structural counterpart to a volume-driven one.

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 the decided-motion sample here is small. 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.