Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Law Offices of Debra B Marino LLC

Firm Juris No. 443649 · 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: this is a motion-aggressive firm with a high grant rate before judges it appears in front of frequently. Its high filing volume is its defining feature; matters tend to turn on focus, the record, and procedure.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is fee leverage + discovery pressure + contempt. Three numbers define them:

• 2.8 counsel-fee requests per case (195 mentions; 12 fee motions pendente lite) — the firm routinely asks the court to make the other side pay fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a frequent cost pressure: litigating against the firm can carry a risk of a fee-shifting request.
• 2.5 discovery motions per case (175 total), backed by 32 motions to compel — discovery is a heavily-litigated area for this firm. The effect is that the process can become expensive and time-consuming before a matter reaches the merits.
• 1.5 contempt motions per case (104 total — 30 pendente lite, 23 post-judgment) — contempt is a commonly-filed motion for this firm, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations tend to appear early and often.

Add 1.8 continuances per case (123) and the full pattern emerges: an extended timeline, sustained discovery and contempt activity, and ongoing fee requests are characteristic of how this firm litigates.

The filing barrage — and the heaviest cases

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~30.2 filings on the docket per case (2,086 total) — a heavy paper load by any measure.

The data does not show the firm singling out unrepresented opponents by volume: against a pro-se opponent it files 30.33 filings/case, against a represented opponent 30.20/case — effectively the same. The volume is heavy across the board, not steeper against the self-represented.

The heaviest individual cases on record show how far that volume can run:

• Heaviest overall: DeNicola v. DeNicola (NNH-FA21-6117754-S) — 86 filings; Bastos v. Bastos (NNH-FA24-6141455-S) — 80; Trimboli v. Trimboli (AAN-FA24-6057021-S) — 77 (opponent pro se); Dzurenda v. Dzurenda (FBT-FA18-6070684-S) — 69; Lamberti v. Lamberti (UWY-FA19-6045827-S) — 62.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Trimboli v. Trimboli (AAN-FA24-6057021-S) — 77 filings; Clark v. Ogundipe (NNH-FA18-5041593-S) — 60; Heusser v. Heusser (FBT-FA19-6066534-S) — 50; Greene v. Greene (FBT-FA24-6138050-S) — 48; Tein v. Tein (NNH-FA22-6124598-S) — 44. Dozens of filings in cases where the opponent had no attorney.

High filing volume is the defining feature of this firm's litigation pattern: the docket itself carries a heavy load. The procedural options described below are general information about the tools and rules that correspond to each pattern.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 26.1% of their cases (18 of 69), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 36 times. GALs are a frequent feature of this firm's custody cases.
• Repeat GAL pairings: the firm repeatedly appears with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (6 appearances each for one, 5 for another). Where a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that history is a matter of public record that a party can research.

Procedural context: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are findable in public docket records. A party may ask the court to appoint a GAL and may raise the question of who is appointed; the appointment order is the document that can define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline. An unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost — defining scope up front is the mechanism that addresses that.

The bench

The firm appears before Hon. Christopher Griffin (30 rulings) more than any other judge, then Grossman (25), Dembo (25), Hartley Moore (22), Figueroa Laskos (15), and Boni-Vendola (14). Its 89% contested-motion grant rate is partly a function of familiarity — frequent appearances mean familiarity with each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A judge's standing orders and motion-practice rules are public; familiarity with the assigned judge's practices is one factor that distinguishes frequent appearers from occasional ones.

What to expect — and your procedural options

For a 10-motions-per-case attrition firm, the following describes what each pattern is and the procedural tools and rules that correspond to it. This is general information, not advice for any specific case.

1. Fee leverage and how fee awards work. At 2.8 counsel-fee mentions per case, fee-shifting is a signature pressure pattern for this firm. Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that a court can consider on a fee question; the cost driver in a case is a factual matter reflected in the docket.

1. The discovery pattern. This firm averages 2.5 discovery motions per case and files 32 motions to compel. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions or a motion to compel. Where discovery requests are overbroad, an objection or a protective-order request is the procedural tool that addresses that, and a complete, documented response record is what reflects compliance.

1. The contempt pattern. With 1.5 contempt motions per case, contempt is a commonly-filed motion for this firm. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with court orders (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidence that bears on a contempt motion. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents is one a court can deny.

1. Continuances and the Motion to Advance. This firm's single most-filed motion is the continuance (119), about 1.8 per case. 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, and a party opposing one may state the basis for objection.

1. Early pendente lite orders. This firm's top-10 includes Support PL (47), Custody PL (34), Exclusive Use of Premises (31), and Alimony PL (28) — early motions that address the pendente lite status quo. A financial affidavit and proposed orders are the documents a party uses at an early hearing; the temporary baseline is set on the record at that hearing.

1. GAL scope. A GAL appears in 26% of this firm's cases, and the firm moves for one 36 times, often with the same guardians repeatedly. A proposed GAL's prior pairings are findable in public records; the appointment order is the document that can define written scope, budget, and deadline.

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. 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.