Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Siegel Colin & Kaufman P.C.

Firm Juris No. 409156 · Lower Fairfield County, 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 that prevails on most of what it files in front of judges it appears before constantly. The firm's volume is its defining feature; the data below describes how that volume shows up on the docket.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 5.3 discovery motions per case (1,085 total) — motions to compel (159), protective orders (85), commissions for deposition (82), motions to quash (59), plus discovery objections (293). Discovery is where much of the activity occurs. The pattern makes the process costly and time-consuming well before a matter reaches the merits.
• 4.4 counsel-fee touchpoints per case (905 mentions) — fee-related filings appear throughout the practice. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable feature of the firm's docket: cost of litigation surfaces repeatedly.
• 2.0 contempt motions per case (418 total — 150 post-judgment, 143 pendente lite, plus 56 general and 56 standalone) — contempt is a routinely-filed motion rather than a last resort. Allegations of order violations tend to appear early and recur.

Add 2.4 continuances per case (494) and the overall pattern emerges: an extended timeline, a high volume of discovery and contempt motions, and recurring fee-related filings across the life of a case.

The filing barrage — and who sees it most

Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~37.5 filings on the docket per case. But the volume is not evenly distributed:

• The firm files more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 46.2 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 35.6/case. A self-represented spouse appears on a docket with roughly 30% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest docket volumes on record: Keller v. Keller (FST-FA11-4028929-S) — 590 firm filings, against a pro-se opponent; Marshall v. Marshall (FST-FA17-6033654-S) — 422; Netter v. Netter (FST-FA17-6031365-S) — 372, also against a pro-se opponent.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: beyond Keller (590) and Netter (372), Brandt v. Kelley (FST-FA19-6042047-S) — 104; Burke v. Burke (FST-FA16-6029428-S) — 95; Galaburda v. Galaburda (FBT-FA16-6060616-S) — 70. Hundreds of filings appear on dockets where the opposing party had no attorney.

This is the core of the volume pattern: the docket itself carries the activity. Self-represented parties, by the numbers, see the highest filing volumes — the section below describes the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern.

Their motion practice (top filings)

GAL strategy

• GAL appears in 12.7% of their cases (26 of 204), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment (157 appointment-related entries). GALs feature as a custody-related element of the firm's practice rather than an incidental one.
• Repeat GAL pairings: the firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (4 appearances each for one, 3 for another). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that pairing is a documented feature of the public record.

For context: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are visible in public docket records. As a matter of procedure, an appointment order may define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and timeline open-ended. These are descriptions of how GAL appointments are structured, not recommendations for any case.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Donna Heller (167 rulings) far more than any other judge, then Kowalski (82), Adelman (71), Hartley Moore (46), and Truglia (43). Their 76% contested-motion win rate is partly familiarity — frequent appearances give a firm working knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That familiarity gap narrows as a party becomes acquainted with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice, all of which are matters of public record.

What to expect — and your procedural options

For a firm that averages 14.5 motions per case, the firm's volume is its defining feature. Below, each pattern above is paired with the procedural tools and rules that correspond to it — described as information, not as a course of action for any particular case.

1. The discovery activity. At 5.3 discovery motions per case, the firm's docket runs heavily on motions to compel, protective orders, and commissions. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use to limit overbroad discovery demands. A clear record of timely, complete responses is what bears on both the compliance narrative and any fee argument.

1. The contempt filings. With 2.0 contempt motions per case, contempt is a common motion in this firm's practice. A contempt finding turns on proof; contemporaneous documentation of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidence against which a contempt motion is measured. A contempt motion unsupported by the documents does not succeed on its own terms.

1. The fee-related filings. With 905 counsel-fee touchpoints, fee questions recur throughout the practice. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that a court may consider on a fee question.

1. The case clock. The firm averages 2.4 continuances per case (424 continuance motions). 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, and the court decides whether a continuance is justified.

1. The self-represented profile. The data is explicit: 46.2 filings/case against pro-se opponents vs. 35.6 against represented ones — and the heaviest docket volume on record (590 filings in Keller) involved an unrepresented party. Not every filing requires a substantive response; the rules of practice govern which filings call for a response and on what timeline. Limited-scope representation (an appearance for discrete matters) is an option recognized in Connecticut for high-stakes motions.

1. The merits. Much of this firm's volume concerns the process of a case. The substantive questions in a family matter — custody, support, division — are decided on their merits regardless of filing volume. A focused, well-documented record is one way the substantive questions reach the front of a case; filing volume on its own does not resolve 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.