Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Rich Rochlin Law Group
Firm Juris No. 429780 · Hartford / New Britain region, 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) | 92 | A steady-volume contested-family practice |
| Home turf | Hartford (HHD): 47, then New Britain (HHB): 31, New Haven (NNH): 8 | The Hartford/New Britain corridor is their court |
| Side they take | 51 plaintiff / 41 defendant | Slight tilt toward filing first — they often set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 6.63 | A motion-heavy, pressure-driven style |
| Contested-motion win rate | 84% (163 granted vs 31 denied) | On contested motions with a recorded outcome, the firm prevails most of the time |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Leo Diana (49), then Armata (48), Connors (32) | They appear frequently before the Hartford/New Britain bench |
Bottom line: a motion-aggressive firm that prevails on most of what it files in front of judges it appears before frequently. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns most visible in the record are focus, documentation, and procedure.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + clock control + contempt leverage. Three numbers define them:
- 2.53 discovery motions per case (233 total) — discovery is the firm's main field of activity. The pattern tends to make the process expensive and time-consuming before a case reaches the merits.
- 2.21 continuances per case (203 total; 189 motions for continuance) — the firm files frequently to manage the calendar. The associated pattern is a stretched timeline, reset hearings, and pressure applied through delay.
- 0.97 contempt motions per case (89 total — 41 post-judgment, 20 pendente lite, 8 general) — contempt is a routine filing for this firm rather than a last resort. The pattern includes frequent allegations that an opponent has violated orders.
Add 1.16 counsel-fee requests per case (107 mentions) and the full picture emerges: heavy discovery, active calendar management, a "non-compliance" record built through contempt, and recurring fee requests — a model oriented toward settlement on the firm's terms.
The filing barrage — and who sees it most
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~25.1 filings on the docket per case (2,312 filings across 92 cases). The volume is not evenly distributed:
- The firm files more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 29.76 filings/case (42 cases). Against a represented opponent: 21.24 filings/case (50 cases). In this dataset, the self-represented party sees the heavier paper load — roughly 40% more filings than a party with a lawyer.
- The heaviest barrage on record: Borg v. Bogdan (HHB-FA21-6067871-S) — 148 filings, against a pro-se opponent. Then Nokes v. Nokes (HHD-FA21-6150134-S) — 85 filings; Phung v. Vo (HHB-FA16-6032282-S) — 60 filings.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Borg v. Bogdan (HHB-FA21-6067871-S) — 148 filings; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (HHB-FA22-5030907-S) — 53 filings; Fletcher v. Fletcher (HHD-FA24-6180777-S) — 50 filings. Each of these reflects a high filing volume directed at a party with no attorney.
This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket volume is itself the firm's defining tool. A self-represented party is, on these numbers, in the firm's heaviest-load category — a useful fact to be aware of in reading the section below.
Their motion patterns (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 189 | Manages the clock |
| Motion for Order | 51 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Objection to Motion | 48 | Frequent opposition to opponent filings |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 41 | Puts an opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment (Pendente Lite) | 32 | Locks in early terms before trial |
| Motion in Limine | 22 | Seeks to keep opponent evidence out |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 20 | Mid-case contempt pressure |
| Motion to Compel | 19 | Discovery enforcement |
| Motion for Exclusive Use of Premises | 14 | Seeks to remove the other spouse from the home |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 9.8% of their cases (9 of 92), and the firm moves for GAL appointment as part of its custody practice. The records do not show this firm repeatedly pairing with the same small set of guardians ad litem — GAL use here is occasional rather than a signature rotation.
Information: When a GAL is proposed, the public record of that proposed name's prior pairings with this firm is one available data point. An appointment order can define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped appointment leaves cost and reporting open-ended.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Leo Diana (49 appearances) and Hon. Barry Armata (48) far more than any other judge, then Connors (32), Abery-Wetstone (25), and Carbonneau (18). Their 84% contested-motion win rate is partly familiarity — they appear before these judges often and are accustomed to each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. A self-represented opponent who learns the assigned judge's motion practice narrows that familiarity gap.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is a 6.6-motions-per-case firm. The patterns above each line up with a specific procedural tool that the rules make available to any party. The information below describes what those patterns are and what the tools are — it is not a recommendation about any case.
- Discovery. The firm runs on discovery motions — 2.53 per case. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. When demands are overbroad, a targeted objection or a motion for a protective order are the procedural tools the rules provide. A record showing a party's own compliance is the factual counterpoint to a non-compliance narrative and is relevant to a fee dispute.
- Contempt. With 0.97 contempt motions per case (and 41 post-judgment contempts on record), a contempt filing is a common feature of this firm's cases. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the kind of documentation that bears on a contempt motion. A contempt motion that is contradicted by the documents tends to fail and can affect how a judge weighs later filings.
- Fees. With 1.16 counsel-fee requests per case (107 total), the firm frequently asks courts to shift fees. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own record of the opposing side's motion volume and continuances is information relevant to that standard, because litigation conduct that drives up cost is one of the factors the statute addresses.
- The calendar. The firm's single most common filing is the Motion for Continuance (189 of them; 2.21 continuances per case). Continuances 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. These are the available mechanisms that bear on the timeline.
- Filing volume. The data shows the firm files 40% more against pro-se opponents (29.76 vs 21.24 filings/case). The defining feature of this firm is volume. A tight, indexed record and short, merits-focused filings are the documentary counterweight that the rules of procedure allow, independent of how many filings the other side makes.
- The merits. The firm's pattern is procedural — and with an 84% contested-motion win rate, it prevails on most procedural motions that reach an outcome. A short, clean, merits-focused record is the alternative posture available under the rules. The substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are decided on their own standards, separate from filing volume.
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.