Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Prince & Hart of the Prince Law Group LL

Firm Juris No. 431120 · 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-aggressive firm that wins most of what it files in front of judges it appears before constantly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns below describe how that volume tends to show up on the docket.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is fee leverage + discovery pressure + a steady motion drumbeat. Three numbers define them:

• 2.56 counsel-fee mentions per case (225 total) — they routinely put fee-shifting in play, asking the court to make the other side pay. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the recurring pressure point: the firm frequently frames continued litigation as something that may carry a cost for the opposing party.
• 2.14 discovery motions per case (188 total), plus a discovery-objection layer — discovery is a prominent front in their practice. The recurring effect is that the process itself becomes time-consuming and expensive well before a case reaches the merits.
• 0.56 contempt motions per case (49 total — 20 pendente lite, 9 post-judgment, plus general contempt) — contempt is a recurring motion in this firm's practice rather than a rare one. Allegations of order violations are a frequent feature of these dockets.

Add 1.09 continuances per case (96) and you get the full picture: a practice that tends to manage the timeline, sustain discovery and fee pressure, and let the cost of litigation accumulate over time.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~18.2 filings on the docket per case. The volume is not evenly distributed:

• Represented opponents see the heavier paper load. Against a represented opponent: 19.27 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 16.92/case. Even the lower number is a substantial paper volume for someone with no lawyer.
• The heaviest dockets on record: Ross v. Chen (FST-FA21-6052573-S) — 126 firm filings (the firm's all-time high on record); Perkins v. Perkins (FST-FA16-5015884-S) — 61 filings (opponent pro se); Santella v. Santella (FBT-FA24-6137587-S) — 54; Rowley v. Rowley (FST-FA15-6026433-S) — 49.
• Cases involving self-represented opponents specifically: Perkins v. Perkins (FST-FA16-5015884-S) — 61 filings, opponent pro se; Cassidy v. Telles (FST-FA23-6059848-S) — 44, pro se; Howland v. Howland (DBD-FA20-6036398-S) — 44, pro se; Smith v. Smith (FST-FA20-6045926-S) — 41, pro se; Salomons v. Halloran (FST-FA11-4020757-S) — 29, pro se. Dozens of filings each, in cases involving parties with no attorney.

The defining feature of this practice is filing volume: the docket itself carries the weight. For a self-represented party, a sustained paper load is a documented characteristic of these cases. The section below describes the procedural tools and rules that are relevant to that pattern.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• GAL appears in 0% of the recorded cases (no docket in the set shows a GAL present), yet the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment (6 such motions; 75 GAL-appointment marker mentions). The recorded data does not support a claim that GALs end up driving these cases — but the firm does file for GAL appointment in custody fights, so it is a feature that may appear.
• The data shows no repeat GAL pairing for this firm. There is no recurring-guardian rotation to flag from these records.

Context: when a GAL is proposed, the appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an appointment order without those limits leaves cost and scope open-ended. A proposed GAL's track record is a matter of public record that any party can research independently.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Ronald Kowalski (21) more than any other judge, then Hon. Donna Heller (17), Hon. Thomas Colin (12), and Hon. Anthony Truglia (8). Their 72% contested-motion win rate is partly familiarity — they know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. That familiarity gap tends to narrow as a self-represented party becomes acquainted with the assigned judge's standing orders.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This firm's practice centers on a steady motion-and-fee pattern. The notes below describe what each pattern is and the procedural tools and rules that relate to it, mapped to the data above:

1. Fee leverage. At 2.56 counsel-fee mentions per case, fee-shifting is the firm's signature pressure tool. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's motion volume and continuances are themselves part of the litigation-conduct record that courts consider under that statute.

1. The discovery front. With 2.14 discovery motions per case, motions to compel are a common feature. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented record of timely, complete responses establishes which party complied.

1. Contempt motions. Contempt motions (20 pendente lite alone) put an opponent on defense and contribute to a "bad actor" record. Contemporaneous proof of compliance — payments, exchanges, communications — is the evidence that a contempt motion is measured against; a motion that is not supported by the documents tends not to succeed.

1. The timeline. Continuance is the firm's single most-filed motion (89). 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, where each one becomes something the moving party must justify.

1. Filing volume and defaults. Represented opponents see ~19 filings/case and pro-se opponents ~17 — and the heaviest dockets here ran into the dozens (e.g., Perkins, 61 filings against a pro-se party). Deadlines run from the date of service, and a written response to a motion — even a brief one — is what keeps a matter from proceeding unopposed.

1. The merits. The firm's model centers on the process. A short, merits-focused record stands in contrast to that pattern: fewer filings, each one documented, with the substantive questions (custody, support, division) at the front. This firm's volume is its defining feature, and a merits-focused posture is one way that volume becomes less determinative.

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.