Opposing-Counsel Playbook: MACNAMARA DAKEN LLC
Firm Juris No. 444380 · Lower Fairfield County, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (28 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
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 28 | A small but active contested-divorce shop |
| Home turf | Stamford/Norwalk (FST): 23, then Danbury (2), Bridgeport (2), Torrington (1) | Lower Fairfield County is their court |
| Side they take | 17 plaintiff / 11 defendant | Files first more often than not, which tends to set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 6.89 | A motion-heavy practice that puts pressure on the docket |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 82.7% (43 granted vs 9 denied) | When this firm files a contested motion on the record, it is granted most of the time |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Ronald Kowalski (19), then Heller (10), DeCastro-Tunnard (7) | They appear before the FST bench frequently |
Bottom line: a motion-aggressive firm that is granted most of what it files in front of judges it appears before regularly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns that follow describe how that volume tends to show up on the docket.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is clock control + discovery pressure + contempt leverage. Three numbers define them:
- 3.5 continuances per case (98 total) — far and away their most-used marker, and continuances dominate their motion practice (81 motions for continuance, the single largest category). The timeline tends to move on this firm's calendar.
- 1.36 discovery motions per case (38 total), backed by discovery objections (12). Discovery is heavily contested: this firm presses for what it seeks while objecting to opposing requests. The effect is that the process itself becomes time- and resource-intensive well before the merits are reached.
- 0.96 contempt motions per case (27 total, 22 of them post-judgment) — contempt is used as a routine motion here, not only as a last resort. Combined with 1.18 counsel-fee requests per case (33), the pattern places contempt and fee exposure in front of an opposing party throughout the litigation.
Add 0.39 ex parte / emergency-custody applications per case (11) and the full picture emerges: a practice characterized by control of the timeline, sustained discovery activity, and consistent use of contempt and fee motions.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~22.6 filings on the docket per case. The volume is not evenly distributed:
- This firm files more against represented opponents than self-represented ones. Against a represented opponent: 24.2 filings/case. Against a self-represented opponent: 15.2/case. That runs the opposite direction from many firms — though 15 filings is still a substantial volume to answer alone, and a single self-represented case has drawn 32 filings (see below).
- The heaviest barrages on record: Firestone v. McKinney (FST-FA17-5023747-S) — 97 filings, the firm's all-time high; Ritter v. Annicelli (FST-FA23-5028964-S) — 58; Meyer v. Meyer (FST-FA18-6038197-S) — 47; Horgan v. Horgan (FST-FA21-6051929-S) — 39; Demirjian v. Demirjian (FST-FA21-6052902-S) — 32.
- Against a self-represented opponent specifically: Sanchez v. Mooney (FBT-FA24-5055113-S) — 32 filings, opponent self-represented. A 32-filing volume in a case where the opposing party had no attorney.
This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket itself carries the litigation pressure. Whether an opposing party is represented or self-represented, the record reflects sustained paper volume; the section below describes the procedural tools and rules that pertain to exactly that pattern.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 81 | Controls the clock — their signature move |
| Motion for Order | 24 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 22 | Shifts the posture to defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion to Compel | 8 | Contested discovery — opening filing |
| Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody | 7 | High-stakes custody motion, fast track |
| Objection to Motion | 6 | Opposes opposing motions on the record |
| Motion for Order of Compliance (PB §13-14) | 6 | Seeks to compel discovery production |
| Motion to Reargue/Reconsider | 4 | Re-litigates adverse rulings |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 25% of their cases (7 of 28), and this firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment (3 such motions; 15 GAL-appointment markers overall). The pattern reflects GAL appointment being used actively in custody matters rather than arising incidentally.
- The data does not show a reportable pattern of the same guardians ad litem recurring across this firm's cases, so no repeat-pairing claim is made here.
What to know: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed person's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record that a party can research. The appointment order is the document that can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended variable.
The bench
This firm appears before Hon. Ronald Kowalski (19 entries) more than any other judge, then Heller (10), DeCastro-Tunnard (7), Hartley Moore (4), and Vizcarrondo (3). Their high grant rate is partly familiarity — repeated appearances mean exposure to each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. The assigned judge's standing orders are public, and familiarity with them is one factor that narrows that gap.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is a clock-controlling, motion-heavy practice. The items below describe the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern documented above — as information about how those tools work, not as direction for any specific case.
- The clock. The firm's single most-used tool is the continuance — 3.5 per case (81 motions for continuance). A continuance can be opposed on the record, and where a party wants a matter heard sooner, a Motion to Advance is the procedural tool used to ask the court to advance it. Each contested continuance is something the moving party must justify to the court.
- Discovery. With 1.36 discovery motions per case plus a dozen discovery objections, discovery is heavily contested here. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, timely response record is what establishes which party is the compliant one, and that record is also relevant to fee questions. Narrowly-tailored objections are the mechanism for responding to over-broad requests.
- Contempt. With roughly one contempt motion per case (27 total, mostly post-judgment), contempt is a frequently-filed motion in this firm's practice. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the documentation that a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion that is not supported by the documents fails on the record.
- Counsel fees. This firm averages 1.18 counsel-fee requests per case (33). Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own motion volume and continuance history are part of the litigation-conduct record the court considers under that statute.
- Emergency custody. This firm filed 7 emergency ex parte custody applications across this set (0.39/case). An ex parte order is provisional by design, and the statute and rules provide for a prompt follow-up hearing at which the full record is presented. The initial ex parte order reflects one side's submission; the subsequent hearing is the stage at which both sides' evidence is before the court.
- The record vs. the volume. This firm's pattern centers on a high-volume process — the heaviest dockets here ran to 97, 58, and 47 filings. A focused, merits-oriented record is a different posture from a high-volume one. The substantive questions in a family matter (custody, support, division) are decided on the merits regardless of filing count, which is what makes a tight, well-documented record distinct from filing volume.
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 on a 28-case sample these rates are 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.