Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Raymond Family Law LLC

Firm Juris No. 437704 · 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 is granted most of what it files in front of judges it appears before frequently. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the data below describes the patterns the volume produces and the procedural rules that interact with each one.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature pattern is continuance control + discovery pressure + fee references. Three numbers describe it:

• 2.8 continuances per case (154 total) — the firm extends the timeline as a baseline pattern. A longer timeline keeps the matter open and outlasts an opponent's stamina and budget.
• 2.5 discovery motions per case (139 total) — discovery is the part of the case where the firm is most active. The pattern tends to make the process expensive and time-consuming before the merits are reached.
• 2.5 counsel-fee mentions per case (135 total) — the firm routinely places fees in issue. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a recurring feature of the record: fees are frequently raised as a litigation cost.

Add 2.3 contempt motions per case (129 total) and the full pattern emerges: a long timeline, heavy discovery activity, frequent fee references, and contempt motions kept available throughout the case.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~31.8 filings on the docket per case (1,748 total) — a heavy paper load for a single-attorney practice.

• The load lands on represented and unrepresented opponents alike. Against a pro-se opponent: 30.3 filings/case (13 cases). Against a represented opponent: 32.2/case (42 cases). Unlike some firms, this firm does not file more against unrepresented opponents — but 30+ filings is still a high volume for someone with no lawyer.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Howard v. Howard (FST-FA12-4023744-S) — 115 filings; Tramposch v. Tramposch (FBT-FA13-4042362-S) — 92 filings (opponent pro se); Trent v. Trent (FBT-FA17-6063364-S) — 87 filings; Zhang v. Tang (NNH-FA19-6090094-S) — 84 filings; Lobsenz v. Lobsenz (FBT-FA19-6086736-S) — 84 filings.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Tramposch v. Tramposch (FBT-FA13-4042362-S) — 92 filings; Awi v. Murphy (FBT-FA16-6054489-S) — 81 filings; Cicatelli v. Cicatelli (NNH-FA19-6098970-S) — 77 filings. Dozens to a hundred-plus filings have appeared in matters against someone with no attorney.

High filing volume is the core feature of this firm's pattern: the docket itself carries the activity. The section below describes the procedural rules and options that interact with that volume.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• GAL appears in 12.7% of their cases (7 of 55), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 12 times. GALs appear in this firm's custody matters as a recurring feature rather than an exception.
• The docket does not show this firm repeatedly funneling cases to the same small set of guardians ad litem; GAL involvement here reads as case-driven rather than relationship-driven.

Procedural note: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record. An appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and duration open-ended.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Margarita Hartley Moore (21 rulings) most often, then Truglia (18), Grossman (17), Moses (15), Kowalski (11), Winslow (9), Gould (9), Dembo (8). Their 76% contested-motion win rate is partly familiarity — repeated appearances build knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A self-represented opponent who reads the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice has access to the same published information.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This is a high-volume, attrition-style firm averaging roughly 10 motions per case. Below, each pattern above is paired with the procedural rule or tool that interacts with it. These are descriptions of what the rules and tools are — not instructions about what to do in any case.

1. The clock. The firm averages 2.8 continuances per case — its single most-filed motion (146). 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. Each continuance request is a separate motion the court can grant or deny.

1. Discovery. With 2.5 discovery motions per case, discovery is where this firm is most active. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. Where a discovery demand is overbroad, a motion for protective order is the corresponding procedural response, and the record reflects which party complied.

1. Counsel fees. The firm averages 2.5 counsel-fee mentions per case. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are themselves part of the litigation-conduct record that the fee statute considers.

1. Contempt. With 2.3 contempt motions per case (60 post-judgment, 24 pendente lite), contempt activity is a recurring feature, and post-judgment contempt is frequent — so the pattern does not end at the decree. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a contempt motion is tested against on the documents.

1. Volume regardless of representation. The firm files ~32 filings/case whether or not the opponent has a lawyer (30.3 pro se vs 32.2 represented). Self-representation is not associated with a lighter load — heaviest-on-record barrages like Tramposch (92 filings) and Awi v. Murphy (81) both occurred in matters against pro-se opponents. A filing-tracking system and a calendar of deadlines are the practical tools for a docket of this size.

1. The merits. This firm's pattern centers on the volume of process. A short, merits-focused record (custody, support, division) is the procedural counterweight to filing volume. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the substantive questions are decided on their own record regardless of how many filings precede 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.