Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Parrett Porto Parese & Colwell P.C.

Firm Juris No. 045340 · 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 whose filed motions are granted most of the time before judges it appears before regularly. The firm's volume is its defining feature; the record and the applicable procedural rules are where that pattern is most observable.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 2.6 discovery motions per case (316 total) — discovery is a primary battlefield for this firm, anchored by motions to compel (33). The effect is to make the process expensive and time-consuming before a matter reaches the merits.
• 1.2 counsel-fee requests per case (144 total) — the firm routinely asks the court to make the other side pay its fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable cost-pressure point.
• ~1 contempt motion per case (117 total — 39 post-judgment, 35 pendente lite, 24 general) — contempt is a recurring tool for this firm, not a last resort. Opponents are commonly accused of violating orders early and often.

Add 1.5 continuances per case (187) and the full picture emerges: an extended timeline, a high volume of discovery and contempt motions, and ongoing fee requests.

The filing barrage — and who sees it most

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~22.6 filings on the docket per case. The volume is not evenly distributed:

• The firm files more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 25.0 filings/case (42 cases). Against a represented opponent: 21.2/case (79 cases). The party least equipped to respond sees the heaviest paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 18% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Agraja v. Agraja (NNH-FA20-6108347-S) — 102 filings, against a pro-se opponent; Aquino v. Aquino (AAN-FA24-6059156-S) — 75 filings; Ham v. Ham (NNH-FA21-6112949-S) — 66 filings, against a pro-se opponent.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: beyond Agraja and Ham above, Douglas v. Cretella (NNH-FA24-5060673-S) — 62 filings; Emanuele v. Emanuele (NNH-FA24-6146919-S) — 52 filings; May v. DeNicola (FST-FA03-0197912-S) — 50 filings. Scores of filings appear in matters where the opposing party has no attorney.

This is the core of the attrition model: the docket itself carries the pressure. Self-represented opponents are statistically the most heavily filed-against profile in this firm's history — the section below describes what the relevant rules and tools are for exactly that asymmetry.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• GAL appears in 13.2% of their cases (16 of 121), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 21 times. GALs feature as a custody lever in this firm's practice, not a neutral afterthought.
• The firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (two recurring GALs, 3 appearances each). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that pairing is part of the public record.

What the rules provide: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record. A party may ask the court to define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline in the appointment order; an unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk. Requests regarding who is appointed and on what terms are addressed to the court.

The bench

The firm appears before Hon. Christopher Griffin (52) and Hon. Jane Grossman (46) far more than any other judge, then Goodrow (28), Dembo (17), Armata (16), Moses (13), Grasso Egan (12), and Kowalski (11). The 81% contested-motion win rate reflects, in part, familiarity — frequent appearances before the same judges. The familiarity gap is narrower for a party who knows the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice, which are public.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This firm files at a high rate — more than six motions per case on average. The following describes, for each pattern above, what the relevant procedural tools and rules are. None of it is a recommendation about any specific case.

1. The discovery pattern. The firm runs heavily on discovery motions — 2.6 per case, anchored by motions to compel. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for a motion to compel or sanctions. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use when a discovery demand is overbroad. A clear record of timely, documented responses is what bears on which side a court views as compliant, which can in turn bear on fee arguments.

1. The contempt pattern. With roughly one contempt motion per case (117 total), a contempt motion is statistically likely in this firm's matters. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the kind of evidence that determines whether a contempt motion is supported by the record. A contempt motion that is not borne out by the documents fails on its own terms.

1. The fee-request pattern. The firm averages 1.2 counsel-fee requests per case. Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own documentation of the opposing side's motion volume and continuances is the kind of evidence relevant to the litigation-conduct factor.

1. The timeline pattern. With 178 motions for continuance on record (1.5 per case), continuances are a frequently-filed motion for this firm. A continuance can be opposed on the record. A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner. These are the mechanisms that bear on the pace of a matter.

1. The paper-volume pattern. At 25.0 filings/case against pro-se opponents (vs 21.2 against represented), filing volume is highest in self-represented matters. A clean, indexed record of every filing is what makes the volume itself usable as evidence — for example, where the count climbs into the dozens, as it did in Agraja (102) and Ham (66) against self-represented spouses, that volume is the kind of fact relevant to a §46b-62 conduct argument.

1. The GAL pattern. GALs appear in 13.2% of their cases and the firm moves for appointment 21 times, repeatedly pairing with the same two guardians ad litem. The proposed name's prior pairings are public record. A party may ask the court to appoint someone outside a recurring rotation and to set a written scope, budget, and deadline in the appointment order.

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.