Opposing-Counsel Playbook: McCabe Wikstrom & Barney LLC

Firm Juris No. 435722 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (27 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 motion-active family firm that files first and files often, in front of judges it appears before repeatedly. The decided-motion sample is small, so the win rate should not be over-read — but the data points to paper volume, with the firm's distinguishing features being focus, the record, and procedure.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is continuance control + contempt pressure + custody-front aggression. Three patterns define them:

• Continuance as a routine tool — 1.44 per case (39 total; Motion for Continuance is their single most-filed motion at 30). They manage the clock. The timeline often stretches on their motion rather than the opposing party's.
• Contempt and discovery pressure — 1.0 each per case (27 contempt markers, 27 discovery motions). Contempt appears as a standard play rather than a last resort, and discovery is frequently contested.
• Custody-front aggression. GAL-appointment activity runs at 0.93 per case (25 markers; 9 GAL-appointment motions), and they reach for emergency tools — ex parte / TRO activity at 0.41 per case (11 markers; 7 applications for emergency ex parte order of custody). When custody is live, they move early to shape it.

Add modification activity at 0.70 per case (19 markers) and the picture is a firm comfortable returning to court — pre- and post-judgment — to keep reopening terms.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~21.4 filings on the docket per case (578 total). The volume is not evenly distributed:

• The heaviest load lands on represented opponents here, not pro se. Against a represented opponent: 24.4 filings/case (16 cases). Against a pro-se opponent: 17.0 filings/case (11 cases). That is the opposite of some firms' pattern — their biggest paper fights are lawyer-versus-lawyer matters.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Herzog v. Herzog (FST-FA15-6026880-S) — 166 filings, the firm's all-time high; Prouvot v. Kinsella (FBT-FA02-0393587-S) — 49 filings (opponent pro se); Mebus v. Grish (FBT-FA19-6091375-S) — 30 filings; Lopez v. Escalante (NNH-FA17-6074092-S) — 29 filings; Figel v. Figel (FBT-FA24-6139998-S) — 25 filings.
• Against a self-represented opponent specifically, the heaviest on record is Prouvot v. Kinsella (FBT-FA02-0393587-S) — 49 filings opposite someone with no attorney; followed by Draffan v. Romanchick (NNH-FA18-5044548-S) — 23 filings (opponent pro se).

A self-represented opponent may see fewer total filings than a represented opponent — but the Prouvot and Draffan records show the firm has, in some cases, filed heavily against a pro-se party. The asymmetry described below appears across the sample regardless.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in roughly 7% of their cases (2 of 27) — a low overall presence, but note that the firm moves for GAL appointment far more often than a GAL actually lands (9 GAL-appointment motions; 25 GAL-appointment markers). GAL appointment is a request the firm reaches for as a custody lever, even though it does not always result in an appointment.
• No recurring guardian-ad-litem pairing rises to a reportable level in this sample; GAL use is described by rate only.

Context: Connecticut appointment orders can define a GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk. Given how often this firm asks for a GAL, the question of whether a GAL is warranted on the facts of a given case is one the data suggests may arise.

The bench

They appear most before Hon. Mark Gould (13), then Margarita Hartley Moore (12) and Donna Heller (12), then Thomas Colin (10). Familiarity with a recurring bench is part of any high-frequency firm's profile — they tend to know each judge's standing orders, calendar habits, and motion practice. A self-represented opponent's familiarity with the assigned judge's standing orders narrows that informational gap.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This firm's volume is its defining feature: a continuance-and-contempt practice with a heavy paper footprint. The following describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern above — as information, not as a recommendation about any case.

1. The clock. Their single most-filed motion is the continuance (30 filings; 1.44/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. The data points to a practice in which delays are frequently sought.

1. Contempt. Contempt runs at 1.0/case (13 contempt motions) and appears as a common motion rather than a rare one. A contempt motion turns on documentary proof of compliance with the underlying order — payments, exchanges, communications. A contempt motion that is not supported by the record does not succeed, and the outcome is reflected on the docket of judges the firm appears before repeatedly.

1. Discovery. Discovery motions run at 1.0/case. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; the docket reflects whether responses were timely and complete.

1. Early custody motions. The firm reaches for the emergency ex parte order of custody (7 applications; 0.41/case) and custody PL motions (6). Where children are involved, custody evidence — a parenting log, communications, a status-quo narrative — is the kind of record that becomes relevant when an ex parte motion is filed early in a case.

1. GAL scope. The firm moves for GAL appointment far more often than a GAL lands (9 motions). When a GAL is proposed, the appointment order is where scope, budget, and reporting deadline can be defined, and whether a GAL is warranted at all is a question that can be raised on the facts.

1. Case posture. Their largest matters are paper-heavy attrition cases (the Herzog record alone is 166 filings). The data shows volume is this firm's defining feature; a short, merits-focused record is a different posture, oriented around the substantive questions — custody, support, division — rather than filing count.

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 this sample of decided motions 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.