Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Robyn Jean Mann
Firm Juris No. 305766 · Built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (25 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
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 25 | A small-sample, solo-practitioner profile |
| Home turf | Danbury (DBD): 18, then New Britain (HHB): 3, Waterbury (UWY): 2 | DBD is overwhelmingly their court |
| Side they take | 13 plaintiff / 12 defendant | A near-even split — no strong file-first tendency |
| Motions per case | 3.64 | Around the typical contested-firm range, not a motion-mill |
| Filings per case | 14.4 | Moderate paper volume per case |
| Busiest judges | Hon. Heidi Winslow (8) and Hon. Jeanet Figueroa Laskos (8), then Fox (7), Armata (6) | A familiar DBD/HHB bench rotation |
Bottom line: a solo practitioner with a moderate, concentrated DBD docket. The contested-motion sample here is small, so the rates should not be over-read — but the firm leans on fee leverage, contempt, and discovery pressure as its core tools. This firm's defining features on this record are focus, a concentrated bench, and procedural volume.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is fee leverage + contempt + discovery pressure. Three marker rates define them:
- 2.36 counsel-fee mentions per case (59 total) — by far the firm's most frequent marker. The firm routinely puts fee-shifting in play, asking the court to make the other side pay. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is the cost pressure point: fee-shifting requests put the prospect of paying the firm's fees on the table.
- 1.24 discovery motions per case (31 total), plus discovery objections — discovery is used as a contested front, which tends to make the process expensive and slow before the merits are reached.
- 1.04 contempt motions per case (26 total — including post-judgment and pendente lite) — contempt is a routine tool here, not a last resort. An accusation of violating orders is a common feature of these cases.
Add 1.08 continuances per case (27) and the picture is a steady, attrition-flavored style on a smaller scale: fees, contempt, and discovery kept in motion over time.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~14.4 filings on the docket per case. The distribution here is notable:
- The firm files more against represented opponents, not pro-se ones. Against a represented opponent: 15.28 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 12.29/case. Here the lighter paper load falls on self-represented opponents — the reverse of the usual asymmetry. That is a small-sample observation, not a guarantee.
- The heaviest barrages on record (all against represented opponents): Shepard v. Shepard (DBD-FA23-6044722-S) — 63 filings (the firm's high on record); Gallagher v. Gallagher (HHB-FA22-6073723-S) — 30; Cambizaca v. Arevalo (DBD-FA25-6053007-S) — 25; Lenox v. Rueter (DBD-FA23-6049830-S) — 21.
Whether an opponent is represented or pro se, the pattern is the same: in a heavy case the docket volume itself becomes the central feature of the litigation.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 24 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Order | 15 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Objection to Motion | 8 | Blocks the other side's requested relief |
| Motion for Contempt (incl. PJ/PL) | 16 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Exclusive Use of Premises | 4 | Fights over the marital home early |
| Motion for Order of Notice | 4 | Service / procedural setup |
| Motion to Compel | 1 | Discovery enforcement |
GAL strategy
- GAL appears in 0% of their cases (0 of 25 dockets show a GAL present), even though the firm moves for GAL appointment in a handful of cases (gal_appointment marker rate 0.24/case). On this record, a guardian ad litem is not a regular feature of how the firm litigates.
- No repeat-GAL pattern is reportable from this sample. There is no recurring guardian-ad-litem pairing to flag.
What to know: when a GAL is proposed, the appointment order is the document that defines scope, budget, and any reporting deadline. An appointment order that leaves those terms open-ended leaves the cost and the scope of the GAL's work open-ended as well.
The bench
They appear most before Hon. Heidi Winslow and Hon. Jeanet Figueroa Laskos (8 each), then Hon. Daniel Fox (7) and Hon. Barry Armata (6) — a concentrated DBD/HHB rotation. Familiarity with a small set of judges is itself an advantage. A self-represented opponent who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice narrows that gap fast.
What to expect — and your procedural options
The decided-motion sample here is small — only 22 of the firm's motions have a recorded outcome, too few to report a reliable contested-motion win-rate percentage. There is no statistically meaningful "win rate" to cite, so the firm's tendencies are the more reliable guide. Five observations, each tied to a stat above:
- Fee leverage is the firm's most frequent marker. Counsel fees are the single most common marker (2.36/case). In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62) — so a party's own litigation volume and continuances are part of the record a court can consider on the question of who drove the cost.
- Discovery is a contested front. With 1.24 discovery motions per case, responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A protective motion or a clear written objection is the procedural tool a party may use to address discovery that is over-broad, and the written record is what shows which side complied.
- Contempt is a routine tool here. At 1.04 contempt motions per case, a contempt motion is a common feature of these cases. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order — payments, exchanges, communications — is the kind of evidence that determines whether a contempt motion is supported on the documents.
- Continuances are the firm's #1 motion type. Continuance is the most-filed motion (24) at 1.08/case. 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.
- The firm's volume is its defining feature. At 3.64 motions and 14.4 filings per case, the firm's profile is built on procedural volume. The substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are decided on their merits, which are a separate track from the volume of motion practice around 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 — and where the decided sample is too small, no rate is reported. 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.