Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Rembish & Lasaracina LLC

Firm Juris No. 421791 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (32 contested cases) — treat rates as indicative, not definitive.

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 plaintiff-side, motion-active firm clustered in one courthouse in front of mostly one judge. Volume is its defining feature, while the numbers here come from a limited sample.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 1.56 discovery-motion events per case (50 total) — discovery is the most active area of their practice. The motion to compel is their second-most-filed motion (10). The effect is to make the process costly and time-consuming before a matter reaches the merits.
• 1.34 continuances per case (43 total) — the motion for continuance is by far their single most-filed paper (42). They are active in managing the schedule; the timeline tends to stretch.
• 0.69 contempt-motion events per case (22 total — including 4 post-judgment) — contempt is a recurring feature of their practice, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations are common.

Add a steady stream of objections (9 "Objection" + 9 "Objection to Motion") and pendente lite orders (8), and the overall pattern emerges: file first, manage the schedule, press discovery, and keep contempt motions in regular use.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~18.8 filings on the docket per case (602 total). And the volume is not evenly distributed:

• They file more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 20.0 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 17.5/case. The party least equipped to respond receives the heavier paper load.
• The heaviest filing volumes on record — Bazylewicz v. Bazylewicz (NNH-FA20-5047939-S): 57 filings (firm's all-time high, opponent pro se); Korotka v. Korotkyy (HHB-FA19-6049514-S): 38 filings (opponent pro se); Wright v. Thyme (HHB-FA23-6081394-S): 38 filings (opponent pro se); Baran v. Bogucka-Baran (HHB-FA24-6083802-S): 38 filings; LaRoche v. LaRoche (HHB-FA20-6061923-S): 35 filings.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically — beyond Bazylewicz, Korotka and Wright above: Mykytyn v. Mykytyn (HHB-FA18-6042028-S): 30 filings (pro se); Nelson v. Maharaj (HHB-FA23-5034175-S): 24 filings (pro se).

A self-represented party is statistically more likely to fall within this firm's heavier-paper pattern — the section below describes the procedural tools and rules relevant to that asymmetry.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in roughly 6% of their cases (2 of 32), and they moved for GAL appointment 2 times. This is a low GAL footprint — but in the cases where one is appointed, it tends to function as a custody-related factor rather than a neutral afterthought.
• The sample is too small to identify any repeat guardian-ad-litem pairing.

Context: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public record that a party can research. The appointment order is the document that defines a GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves those terms open-ended, which carries open-ended cost and risk.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Barry Armata (25 rulings) far more than any other judge — then Pinkus (4), Connors (4), Allard (3), with Gould, Caron and Dolan trailing. Their high contested-motion grant rate is partly familiarity: one judge dominates their docket, and repeated appearances build knowledge of that judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That familiarity gap narrows as a self-represented opponent learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This firm's profile is continuance-and-discovery driven, and its filing volume is its defining feature. The points below describe the patterns above and the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each one. They are descriptions of what the tools are and what the pattern is — not instructions about what to do in any case.

1. The clock. The motion for continuance is their single most-filed paper (42; 1.34/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. Each continuance request is something the moving party must justify to the court.

1. The discovery pattern. With 1.56 discovery-motion events per case and the motion to compel as their #2 filing, discovery is the firm's most active area. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions or a motion to compel. A protective order or a targeted objection is the mechanism for responding to demands a party views as overbroad. The record reflects which party responded completely.

1. The contempt pattern. Contempt motions appear in roughly seven of every ten cases (0.69/case, plus post-judgment contempt). Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the kind of documentation that a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion that is not supported by the record is one a court can deny.

1. The objection pattern. They file objections heavily (9 + 9). Motions that are tightly drafted, well-grounded, and procedurally clean present fewer grounds for objection, and a clearly briefed motion is one a busy judge can rule on from the papers.

1. Pendente lite terms. They move early for orders before judgment (8). Pendente lite motions set interim terms (support, custody, use of property); a party may also file proposed interim orders so the court has more than one set of proposed terms before it.

1. Case posture overall. This firm's model centers on the process — the schedule, discovery, and contempt motions — and its volume is the defining feature of its docket. A short, merits-focused record is the alternative posture: the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are the matters a court ultimately decides, and filing volume is not itself a measure 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, and the decided-motion sample here is small. 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.