Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Laliberte Law LLC

Firm Juris No. 440857 · 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

Bottom line: a motion-active firm that prevails on most of what it puts to a contested ruling, in front of judges it appears before regularly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns most relevant to an opposing party are focus, the record, and procedure.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is discovery activity + timeline management + contempt filings. Three rates define them:

• 2.15 discovery motions per case (144 total) — discovery is a primary venue for their filings. The effect is to make the process lengthy and resource-intensive well before the merits are reached.
• 1.45 continuances per case (97 total) — the timeline is routinely extended. Delay keeps the matter pending longer, which tends to weigh more heavily on the party with fewer resources.
• 1.03 counsel-fee requests per case (69 total) — fees are regularly raised, asking the court to shift the cost of litigation. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, fee exposure is a notable feature of this firm's pattern.

Add 0.70 contempt motions per case (47 total) and 0.57 GAL-appointment requests per case (38 total), and the aggregate picture is: frequent discovery and contempt filings, active timeline management, fees kept in play, and pressure toward settlement on terms favorable to the firm's client.

The filing volume — and who sees it most

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~20.6 filings on the docket per case (1,377 total). The distribution between opponents who have counsel and those who don't is close:

• Against a represented opponent: 21.1 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 19.3 filings/case. Here the paper load runs slightly heavier against represented opponents — but a self-represented spouse still faces roughly 19 filings to track and answer, which is a heavy load for anyone without a lawyer.
• The heaviest volumes on record: McKechnie v. McKechnie (FBT-FA06-4018273-S) — 198 filings (the firm's all-time high); DiNapoli v. DiNapoli (FBT-FA22-6119497-S) — 40; Fuori v. Fuori (DBD-FA22-6042498-S) — 40 (opponent self-represented); O'Keefe v. Williams (NNH-FA22-6120852-S) — 37; Zambory v. Zambory (NNH-FA16-6063509-S) — 36 (opponent self-represented).
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Fuori v. Fuori — 40; Zambory v. Zambory — 36; Ortega v. Sanchez (FBT-FA23-6129000-S) — 35; Eggart v. McCready (FBT-FA19-6082075-S) — 29; Lenkeit v. Mikucionis (FBT-FA17-6069840-S) — 27. Dozens of filings in cases where the opponent had no attorney.

This is the core of the pattern: the docket itself carries a high filing volume. A self-represented opponent of this firm can expect a sustained filing stream; the sections below describe the procedural tools and rules that bear on that pattern.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• GAL appears in 10.4% of their cases (7 of 67), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 38 times across their history. GALs feature as a custody-related lever in this firm's pattern, not as a rare event.
• No small set of guardians ad litem recurs often enough across these records to flag as a repeat pairing; GAL involvement here is best understood by rate, not by any particular roster.

Procedural context: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public record that can be researched. An appointment order can define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended commitment.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Margarita Hartley Moore (19) more than any other judge, then Truglia (17), Grossman (11), Figueroa Laskos (10), and Grasso Egan (8). Their 91% contested-motion win rate reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances build knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. That familiarity gap narrows as an opposing party learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice, which are public.

What to expect — and your procedural options

For a motion-active firm with this profile, the relevant information is descriptive: what the firm's pattern is, and what procedural tools and rules exist in Connecticut family practice. The following pairs each observed pattern with the neutral procedural context.

1. Discovery activity. At 2.15 discovery motions per case, discovery is a primary venue for this firm's filings. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented record of timely, complete responses is what speaks to who the compliant party is. When discovery requests are over-broad, a targeted objection or a protective motion is the procedural tool addressed to that issue.

1. Contempt filings. With 0.70 contempt motions per case (plus post-judgment contempt motions), contempt motions are a recurring feature of this firm's pattern. Contemporaneous documentation of compliance with each order — payments, exchanges, communications — is the evidentiary record that a contempt motion is tested against. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents does not succeed.

1. Counsel-fee requests. At 1.03 fee requests per case, fees are regularly raised. Under Connecticut law, 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 the court considers when fee questions arise.

1. Timeline and continuances. This firm averages 1.45 continuances per case (plus 31 extension-of-time motions), which extends 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, which puts the moving party to its justification for each one.

1. GAL appointments. GALs appear in about 1 in 10 of this firm's cases, and the firm moves for appointment frequently. When a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's history is public and can be researched, and the appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline can be defined.

1. Process vs. merits. This firm's model is oriented toward the process, and its contested-motion win rate is 91%. The procedural counterweight that bears on a high-volume opponent is a focused, merits-oriented record: fewer, well-supported filings, documentation behind each one, and the substantive questions (custody, support, division) kept at the front. This firm's volume is its defining feature; a focused record is what makes filing volume less determinative of the outcome.

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.