Opposing-Counsel Playbook: SOL E MAHONEY

Firm Juris No. 416371 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

Limited sample (29 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 single attorney who runs a high-paper, discovery-and-contempt-driven practice and prevails on most of what is decided. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the data also point to focus, the record, and procedure as the dimensions where that volume matters less — and the rates here are directional, not definitive, because the sample is small.

How they litigate (the style)

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

• 2.35 discovery motions per case (68 total) — motions to compel (16) and orders of compliance lead the way. Discovery is where much of the activity concentrates: the pattern is to make the process expensive and time-consuming before the matter reaches the merits.
• 2.03 counsel-fee requests per case (59 mentions; fee motions both general and pendente lite) — they routinely ask the court to make the other side pay their fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable cost exposure: litigating against this firm may carry a fee-shifting risk.
• 1.41 contempt motions per case (41 total, across pendente lite, post-judgment, and general) — contempt appears as a routine working tool rather than a last resort. An accusation of violating orders is a common feature of these dockets.

Add 1.90 continuances per case (55) and the full picture is one of a stretched timeline, accumulated discovery and contempt motions, and a running fee meter — the hallmarks of an attrition style.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~24.2 filings on the docket per case. And the volume tilts toward the unrepresented:

• The filing count is higher against unrepresented opponents, not lower. Against a pro-se opponent: 26.36 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 22.2/case. The party least equipped to respond sees the heavier paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 19% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest barrages on record: McNamara v. McNamara (UWY-FA17-6034780-S) — 83 filings (the firm's all-time high, against a pro se opponent); Godman v. Godman (UWY-FA22-6065481-S) — 67; Leschinsky v. Leschinsky (FST-FA22-6054893-S) — 61 (pro se); Cofrancesco-Martone v. Martone (NNH-FA22-5053198-S) — 48 (pro se); Wade v. Rucker (FBT-FA19-5042221-S) — 45 (pro se).
• Aimed at self-represented opponents specifically: the heaviest pro-se docket is again McNamara (83 filings), followed by Leschinsky (61), Cofrancesco-Martone (48), Wade v. Rucker (45), and Raffaele v. Raffaele (FBT-FA18-6069122-S) — 38, all against opponents with no attorney.

This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket itself carries the pressure. Self-represented parties appear, in this data, to be the profile that draws the heaviest filing volume — the section below describes the procedural landscape that asymmetry sits in.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in just 6.9% of their cases (2 of 29) — low, and below what one might expect from a contempt-and-custody-heavy practice. When a GAL does enter, the firm has moved for appointment 11 times across its history, which suggests the request tends to be deliberate rather than incidental.
• Because the GAL footprint is small, a proposed appointment in any given case reads more like a discrete strategic choice by the firm than routine practice.

What this means: when a GAL is proposed, the scope, budget, and reporting deadline set in the appointment order define the cost and risk exposure. An unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk — and in a practice that uses GALs sparingly, a sudden push for one is one signal that the firm sees leverage there.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Christine Rapillo (13) more than any other judge, then Grossman (11), Dembo (8), Kowalski (7), and Hartley Moore (6). A familiar core bench is part of the picture: a firm that appears in front of the same judges over time becomes familiar with their preferences, calendar habits, and pet peeves. Familiarity with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is one factor that narrows that information gap.

What to expect — and your procedural options

Against a 7-motions-per-case attrition firm, the recurring question is the chosen ground of the fight. Six observations, each tied to a specific pattern above, describing the relevant patterns and the procedural tools that exist:

1. The discovery war. With 2.35 discovery motions per case (and 16 motions to compel on record), discovery is a primary front. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; a documented, targeted objection or protective-order request is the procedural response available when demands are over-broad. A record showing complete, timely compliance is the factual counterweight to a non-compliance narrative and to a fee argument resting on it.

1. The contempt pattern. With 1.41 contempt motions per case (41 total, including 10 pendente lite), contempt is a frequently-filed motion in these matters. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with every order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidentiary record a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion that does not hold up on the documents both fails and bears on credibility before a familiar bench.

1. The fee-leverage pattern. They average 2.03 fee requests per case. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A record of the firm's own motion volume and continuances is the kind of litigation-conduct evidence the statute makes relevant to who bears cost.

1. Clock control. Their single most-filed motion is the continuance — 50 of them, ~1.90 per 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. These are the two procedural levers that bear on case timing.

1. The win rate in context. Their decided-motion sample is small (69 decided motions; 29 contested cases), so the 71% grant figure is indicative, not definitive. Each motion is decided on its own facts, and a familiar bench cuts both ways once an opponent appears prepared and compliant.

1. Process vs. merits. The firm's model centers on the process — discovery, contempt, continuances, fees. A short, clean, merits-focused record is the structural contrast to that approach: a tight, well-documented set of filings directed at the substantive questions (custody, support, division) is what keeps filing volume from being the deciding variable. The firm's volume is its defining feature, and a merits-focused posture is what makes that volume less determinative.

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.