Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Puhlick & Cartier P.C.
Firm Juris No. 105086 · New London Judicial District (KNO), CT · 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
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 70 | A steady, high-volume contested-divorce practice |
| Home turf | New London JD (KNO): 70 | One district — this is entirely their home court |
| Side they take | 39 plaintiff / 31 defendant | Files first slightly more often than not |
| Motions per case | 5.41 (379 motions) | A motion-active, attrition-leaning style |
| Contested-motion win rate | 83% (50 granted vs 10 denied) | When a contested fight is put on the record, it usually resolves in their favor |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Kenneth Shluger (32), then Connors (18), Newson (12) | They appear before the New London bench frequently |
Bottom line: a focused, single-district firm that appears in its home courthouse repeatedly and prevails on most contested motions it files. This firm's volume and single-district focus are its defining features.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery activity, continuance practice, and frequent contempt filings. Three numbers define them:
- 1.96 discovery motions per case (137 total) — discovery is where most of their motion activity concentrates. Motions to compel (19) sit on top of a large body of discovery activity. The effect is that the process tends to become expensive and time-consuming before a case reaches the merits.
- 1.17 continuances per case (82 total) — a pattern of calendar management. Combined with their courthouse familiarity, this is associated with a longer timeline.
- 0.70 contempt motions per case (49 total — 23 post-judgment, 21 pendente lite) — contempt is a routinely-used tool in this firm's practice rather than a rare one. Allegations of order violations are a recurring feature.
Add a meaningful counsel-fee posture (24 fee mentions / 0.34 per case) and 13 ex parte / TRO-type filings, and the full picture is: heavy discovery activity, active calendar management, and recurring contempt and fee filings.
The filing barrage — and which cases saw the most
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~18.3 filings on the docket per case. The load is roughly even regardless of who is on the other side:
- Against a pro-se opponent: 17.74 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 18.75/case. The paper volume is nearly the same whether or not the other side has a lawyer — a self-represented party faces a comparable filing load to a represented one, typically with fewer resources to respond.
- The heaviest filing volumes on record: Bitten v. Bitten (KNO-FA19-6104617-S) — 82 filings (the firm's all-time high); Barrientos v. Ormeno (KNO-FA21-6107296-S) — 61; Dyjak v. Dyjak (KNO-FA20-6106181-S) — 56; Giroux v. Giroux (KNO-FA21-5110047-S) — 43 (opponent self-represented); Beck v. Mapen (KNO-FA23-6109161-S) — 38.
- In cases with self-represented opponents specifically: Giroux v. Giroux (KNO-FA21-5110047-S) — 43 filings; Sabados v. Sabados (KNO-FA20-6106133-S) — 36; Burton v. Burton (KNO-FA24-6110081-S) — 36; Greaves v. Revoir (KNO-FA20-5107874-S) — 26; Heilweil v. Havrda (KNO-FA19-5106829-S) — 25. Dozens of filings in cases where the opposing party had no attorney.
The data indicates a self-represented party is likely to face a similar filing volume to a represented one. The section below describes the procedural context for that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 79 | A request to reschedule; affects case timing |
| Motion for Order | 48 | General-purpose motion / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite | 43 | Sets interim terms early in the case |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 23 | Alleges violation of orders after judgment |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 21 | Alleges violation of interim orders pre-judgment |
| Objection to Motion | 21 | A filed objection to the other side's motion |
| Motion to Compel | 19 | A discovery motion seeking responses |
| Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody | 11 | A high-stakes emergency custody filing |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 9 | Asks the court to add a guardian ad litem to a custody matter |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 12.9% of their cases (9 of 70), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 9 times. GAL appointments feature in their custody practice rather than being incidental.
- They repeatedly appear with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (one recurring GAL appears in 3 of their cases). Recurring firm-and-GAL pairings are a documented feature of this firm's history.
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 that a party can research. A party may ask the court for a guardian ad litem from outside any recurring rotation, and an appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline — Connecticut practice treats an unscoped GAL as an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Kenneth Shluger (32 rulings) far more than any other judge, then Connors (18), Newson (12), Carbonneau (10), and Devine (9). Their 83% contested-motion win rate partly reflects familiarity — repeat appearances mean knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. A judge's standing orders and motion practice are public, and a self-represented party who learns the assigned judge's procedures has access to the same information.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This firm's volume and single-district focus are its defining features. The following describes the procedural context tied to each pattern above — what the tools and rules are, not a recommendation about what to do in any case:
- The discovery dimension. At 1.96 discovery motions per case, discovery is where most of this firm's motion activity concentrates. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; documenting responses creates a record. Connecticut allows a focused objection or protective filing in response to over-broad demands. A record showing timely, complete compliance is relevant to both the sanctions and the fee analysis.
- The contempt dimension. With 0.70 contempt motions per case (post-judgment contempt the most-used variety, 23 filings), contempt filings are a recurring feature of this firm's practice. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidentiary record against a contempt allegation. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail on its own terms.
- The fee dimension. This firm carries a counsel-fee posture (24 fee mentions). In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record the statute considers — the docket itself documents who generated which costs.
- The continuance dimension. Continuance is this firm's single most-filed motion (79), averaging 1.17 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. These are the two procedural levers Connecticut practice provides on case timing.
- The pendente-lite and ex parte dimension. This firm files early interim orders — 43 motions for orders pendente lite and 11 emergency ex parte custody applications. Interim relief is heard on short timelines, and an unopposed early order can set the terms that govern the rest of a case. The procedural response to interim relief is to appear and respond within the applicable deadline.
- The GAL dimension. Given the recurring GAL pairings in this firm's cases, a proposed GAL's prior appearances with the firm are publicly researchable. Connecticut practice allows a party to request a guardian ad litem from outside a recurring rotation and to ask that the appointment order specify scope, budget, and a reporting deadline. As to overall posture: filing volume is this firm's defining feature, and the merits questions (custody, support, division) are decided on their own record regardless of how many motions surround them.
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.