Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Pullman & Comley LLC

Firm Juris Nos. 047892 & 409177 · Bridgeport / Stamford / Hartford, 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

Bottom line: a well-resourced, motion-aggressive firm whose contested motions are granted most of the time before judges it appears before constantly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the record and procedure are where that volume meets its limits.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 3.79 discovery motions per case (470 total) — including motions to compel (21), orders of compliance under PB §13-14 (20), and protective orders under PB 13-5 (18). Discovery is the firm's main battlefield. The effect is to make the process expensive and time-consuming well before a case reaches the merits.
• 3.01 counsel-fee requests per case (373 mentions) — fees are routinely placed on the table. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the pressure point: the cost of litigating is part of the dynamic.
• 1.65 continuances per case (205 total) — the firm tends to control the clock. Stretched timelines keep the fee meter running, and delay itself becomes part of the litigation posture.

Add 0.82 contempt motions per case (102 total) and the full picture emerges: a litigation style built on timeline pressure, heavy discovery, and sustained cost, with cases often resolving on the firm's terms.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~24.67 filings on the docket per case. And the volume is not evenly distributed:

• They file more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 28.57 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 23.53/case. The party least equipped to respond receives the heaviest paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 21% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Leite v. Leite (FST-FA18-6034332-S) — 157 filings (the firm's all-time high); Renstrup v. Renstrup (FBT-FA17-6066429-S) — 150 (opponent pro se); Brochard v. Brochard (NNH-FA09-4034669-S) — 143; Cabeza v. Huhn (HHD-FA16-6071926-S) — 106.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Renstrup v. Renstrup (FBT-FA17-6066429-S) — 150 filings; Trippe v. Williams (NNH-FA19-5044598-S) — 64; Portanova v. Heitz (FST-FA19-6040254-S) — 56; Duberstein v. Messer (FST-FA19-6044155-S) — 56; Kasinskas v. Kasinskas (FST-FA19-6044483-S) — 53. Dozens of filings in cases where the other side had no attorney.

This is the core of the attrition model: the docket itself carries the pressure. A self-represented party fitting this profile is, on the data, among the firm's most heavily filed-against opponents — and the procedural options below describe how that asymmetry typically plays out on the record.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 9.7% of their cases (12 of 124), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 19 times. When a custody dispute is live, the firm appears comfortable bringing a third decision-maker into the room. A GAL proposal functions as a strategic lever in a case, not a neutral afterthought.

Procedural note: A GAL appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline up front; an appointment order that does so is what bounds an otherwise open-ended cost. An unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk — and that cost tends to fall hardest on the party with the least to spend.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Donna Heller (36 rulings) more than any other judge, then Diana (23), Truglia (20), Adelman (18), Kowalski (16). Their 77% contested-motion grant rate is partly familiarity — they know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. Familiarity with an assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is the variable that narrows that gap; it is something any party can study from the public record.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a ~8-motions-per-case attrition firm, the data points to where the litigation pressure concentrates. Six observations, each tied to a specific pattern above, describe the relevant tools and rules rather than prescribing a course of action:

1. The discovery dispute. At 3.79 discovery motions per case, this is the firm's main battlefield — motions to compel, orders of compliance (PB §13-14), and protective orders (PB 13-5). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, timely response is what the record reflects. A protective order under PB 13-5 is the procedural tool available when discovery demands are claimed to be excessive. A record showing which party is compliant is what bears on a later fee argument.

1. The fee leverage. With 3.01 counsel-fee mentions per case, fees are commonly used as pressure. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that a court may weigh under that statute.

1. The clock. The firm averages 1.65 continuances per case (181 continuance motions, plus 26 extensions of time), which tends to stretch timelines. 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. Each continuance is something the moving party must justify.

1. The contempt motion. With 0.82 contempt motions per case (102 total — 32 post-judgment, 27 pendente lite), a contempt motion is a frequently-filed motion in these cases. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the documentary record against which a contempt motion is decided. A contempt motion unsupported by the documents tends to fail, and an unsupported motion can affect a movant's credibility with a judge before whom the firm appears constantly.

1. The filing volume. The firm files 28.57 filings/case against pro-se opponents versus 23.53 against represented ones — on the data, the unrepresented party is the more heavily filed-against, not the spared one. This volume is the firm's defining feature, and it is not something a self-represented party is positioned to match. A tight, indexed record and responses limited to what the rules require are how filings are typically managed on the receiving end; a high filing count does not, by itself, require a matching response.

1. The merits. The firm's model concentrates on the process — the heaviest dockets here run to 150-plus filings. A short, merits-focused record stands in contrast to that volume. The substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are what the court ultimately decides; filing volume is a feature of the process, not of the merits.

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.